^5^^^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


fe 


fi 


1.0 

■50     ^^ 

I.I 

U     t_ 

|l.25 

[1.4 

!l    .  .. 

IE 

2£ 

1.6 


m 


p^^ 


/ 


j^ 


Photographic 

Sdeiices 
Corporation 


33  WIST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  •72-4503 


d 


•S^ 


\^  ^ 


A 


iV 


\ 


\ 


O^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 


D 


D 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couvoiture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommag^e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurde  et/ou  pelliculde 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 


r~l    Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 


along  interior  margin/ 

Lareliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 

distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout4es 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  dtait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  film6es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppl6mentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-#tre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliogrdphique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mdthode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquds  ci-dessous. 


I      I    Coloured  pages/ 


D 
D 
D 
D 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag6es 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurees  et/ou  pelMculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  ddcolordes,  tachetdes  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachdes 


r^f'  Showthrough/ 


Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  indgale  de  I'impressiun 

Includes  supplementary  materia 
Comprend  Qj  materiel  supplementaire 


PT^  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I      I    Includes  supplementary  material/ 


D 
D 


Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  dtd  film^es  d  nouveau  de  fagon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  lat'o  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  fiimd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


SOX 


, / 


12X 


16X 


20X 


2<m 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

U.OF  T.  LAW  LIBRARY 
University  of  Torontn  Library 


L'exemplaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
g6n6rosit6  de: 

U.OF  T.  LAW  LIBRARY 
University  of  Toronto  Library 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Lea  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
de  la  nettet6  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprim6e  sont  filmds  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmds  en  cOinmenqant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^^>  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED "),  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparattra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  —^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
film^s  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  §tre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cliche,  il  est  fiim6  d  par^ir 
de  Tangle  stip6rieur  gauche,  de  ga-jche  d  dioite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  n6cossaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  indthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1  2  3 

4  5  6 


\ 


.z' 


A   TUKATISK 


(IN    TIIK. 


CONTRACTS 


oi- 


Wrril    SPKCIAL   lil'.l'KKKNCl-,   TO    MCll   A-   SKKK    TO    I.I.MIT  TIIKIi; 
I.IAi'.ll.nV     AT    COMMON     1,AW.    I'.V      \IKANS     OF     i'.II.l.S    OF 

!,Ai)iN(i.  i;.\FiM>s  i;::(i:ii'rs,  i;  \ii,'.;oa1)  ;  hkkis. 
I'.Aiic A<;i'.   cnF.riv-.  inc.   ;:r('. 


-A' 


} 


15V  JOHN  d:  lawsox, 


i;iii  I'ui!  cr,-  I'l;  \i,  i.\\\  .miiiNAi,. 


ST.  i.or  IS.  Vio.: 

I  AW   ri  r,:.T>i;!;;!  and  ni;i,isiir.!!  or   rii;; 

■.  KXTUAL   \.\\V  JorHN.M-. 

ISSO. 


s«&jii8iiMBS«*-;- 


V 


l:^ 


' :,  iliMiTJIMiiyilW -r 


fcf 


ISSd.  Iiv 


Kiiii'ivil  arconliii^'  to  Ar;  ol'  ('n;i;j,'iv-s  ill  llic  ye 

.t(>;i\  !).  r.Awsox. 

ill  tlir  otlii';'  lit'  t!ic  ijlu-iiriaii  nl'  ( 'mii-ti'".  ;iI  W.Hiiiu.irtuii. 


iJrx 


ri'iM'i:i)   iiv    Ti::'. 
<i:nii;\i.  i  aw  .lontNA!, 


-^ 


-mf' 


i 


To  IIoii.  r.  M.  Kosi:,  of  I/iltlc  KNx'k.  Ai'k..  lln- (iriLiin  of 
!liis  work  is  (liif.  It  v.iis  his  pi'ojccl  ;  uliicli  ill  liciiltli  and 
liic  (Icinaiuls  of  ail  active  pi'acticc  coiiipollcd  liini  to  rclin- 
(jiiisli  into  Ic-^s  coiiiiiftcii!  liaiids. 

'I'lic  fact  that  at  l!i''  prc-cnl  dav  llic  Iraiisporialion  cillii'i' 
o!"  !L!'()ods  or  passciipTs  is  seldom  uiHleitakeii  e>;c"j>t  under 
a,  ('((iiii'ael  exeiiipliiiii"  the  Carrier  i'voni  a  part  if  iiol  all  of 
liis  eoiiiinon  hiw  lial)ilities,  pi'eseiils  a  sullieieiit  reason  for 
the  a])}iearane;>  of  this  !>ook. 

rile  fact  (hat  all  previous  Treati-es  on  the  Law  of  Coiii- 
inon  V  arriers  lia\c  eiidea\()red  to  cove'' the  whole  lield  of 
the  duties  and  res|)(,iisil)ililies  of  {lie  Carrier  under  all  eir- 
einiistanees,  and  lia\e,  therefore,  heeii  al'Ie  to  !j,i\c  hul  small 
s[)aee  to  tln^  topics  of  the  1"olli»wiiiu'  paii'es,  I'cmoves  this 
Treatise  from  the  criticism  that  it  is  upon  a  sul)jeet  already 
well  discussed. 

It  is  thouu'hl  that  this  work  will  he  of  some  \alue  to  all 
who  lia\('  any  dealiii'^s  with  the  <'lass  of  which  it  treats.  It 
presents,  hesich's  a  statement  of  the  ia\v  as  it  stands,  a  sketch 
of  the  ancient  liahility  of  the  ('omi.KUi  Carrier;  the  reh'.x- 
alioii  of  those  sli'ici  rn!<'-  and  liie  conl'iision  and  c,  il  which 
have  resulted  therefroi.i.  Whetlier  pui)lic  policy  as  a  safe- 
liuard  auainst  corporate  monopoly  will  not  soon  I'CMjuiro  a 
I'etui'i!  to  the  (hx'trines  which  the  wi-dom  of  our  ancestoi',> 
estal)lished'.  is  a  <|Uestion  upon  which  discaission  has  just 
comnieneed.  hut  which  has  alread\'  been  answei-ed  in  the  af- 
lirinatl\e  in  more  than  oiu-  of  the  Slates.  d.  I).  L. 

St.  Jiouis,  rei)r;iarv  "iO.  Issi). 


L    -J' 


!t::Maaw6*.'»«— 


pjipn^wwmvr   1*»^  *WM 


I 


1' 


! 

I. 

TAHLIIOF  CONTENTS. 


tllAl'TEIl    I. 


INTUOIUCTION— TlIK  MAUIMTIKS   OK    <()MM()\   DAlMUKltS    INDKrKND- 
KNT  Ol'  STKC'IAI-  CONTKAirf. 


1    J 


\S'li()  arc  ('()imi\()u  ciirricrs  .        .        . 

("omiiiim  ciirricis  MS  insurers 
Hxcoptions  ti)  tlic  li!il)ili(y  :\s  iinnvrs 

Tlic  iift  ot  God 

Disi'onlaul  decisions 

(.'ases  not  witliin  llie  ••net  of  (!od'" 

Tin'  (jnesiion  of  ni'j^ligi'nee  immaterial 

Aet  of  (Jod  the  exclusive  cause 

?<'e,u;li),'once  and  act  of  Clod  ooncuninj; 

Loss  l)y  act  of  (Jod  after  iwjilijjjenl  delay 

Loss  l)y  act  of  (iod  after  deviation     . 

Duty  of  carrier  to  preserve  goods  damaged  l)y 

The  jiuhlic  enemy 

Losses  caused  hy  inluM-ent  defects  in  gooils  car 
I/iahilities  of  carriers  of  i)assengers 
Liabilities  of  carriers  of  animals    . 
Losses  caused  liy  seizure  muler  process      . 

Discordant  decisions 

[,osses  caused  by  act  or  omission  of  owner 
Concealment  of  value  or  quality     . 

Fraud  always  a  bar 

Losses  caused  by  neglect  of  owiu'r 

Owner  undertaking  part  of  duties  of  carrier 


act  ( 


ried 


Sf.CTlON. 

•              t             • 

1 

,                , 

2 

,                , 

:i 

• 

4 

• 

• 

s 

"  . '  . " 

1(» 

^                , 

11 

of  Cod  . 

V2 

■                  •                  • 

y,\ 

,                  , 

14 

•                  *                  • 

1") 

10 

^                  , 

17 

Ih 

,                  , 

19 

. 

20 

. 

21 

. 

22 

. 

•2i 

f^ 


■i-V 

'I  ■ 
J 


i 


■■fliflw^ 


^mm 


.»»?■«».,„■:.«•»• 


f 


»l 


TAIII.K  ()!•  CONTKNIS. 


A'JIAI'iKli    II. 


■ii:i;  I'own;  or  coMAinN  cAiiiMKits  to  limit  tiikii;  i.iaiiii.itv. 


I'liwiT  fiiniiiTly  mil  ;.(linitliM|     . 
i;h;(ii'  of  ihc  MiH'ifiil  rule  rchixcil  . 
iJcL^Ti'ls  111  till' alianildiiiiii'iil  of  llic  inicifiil 
•|'ii.-   Mll.U'li-ll  >llllMllS  .... 

(;i.iirr:il  I'iilf  ill  Anici'iiM      .... 

'I'lic  ni!i'  ill  llic  I'liitiM]  Si;iic-  Cciiiri- 

'I'lir  i;iilc  ill  Al;iliniiiii  .... 

.'irl'.iiiiMi-^ 

( ';iliuiriii;i 

( 'iiiiiiailii 

(  '(llllM'Ciil'llI 
I  )i'l;l\\;ll'(' 
I'liiiiiiii     . 
(i('or,ui;i 
MiiiKiis     . 
Ill(li;iliil 

Kan^ii- 
Kciiliiiky 
I.iiiii--i:iiia      . 
Maine       . 
Marylaiui 
.Ma-siu'iiiisciis 
MicliiiCMii 
Miiiiii'sola 
.Mi>sis<ii)[)i 
Missouri 
N'i'lira>ka 
Ni'vaila     . 
Ni'W  llaiii|i>liiri 
N't'w  .liTscy 
New  Yorl< 
,        '■  N'oi'lli  ('aroliiia 

Oliia      . 
Oregon 
I'ciiiisyivaiiia 
lUioili'  Isjaiii'i 
Soiitli  Carolina 
'I'cniU'sscc 
Texas    . 


SI- 


CIIUN. 

21 

•ji; 

•J  7 

2s 
211 


n: 
;is 
:!',► 

10 

n 

12 

II 

!.■> 

ii; 

17 

IS 
1!) 

.")! 
.'.2 

.■>;{ 
."•I 

.")7 

.-)S 
,")!) 

(il 
(i2 


T.Mll.i;  OF  ((jNTKNTH. 


VII 


••  \'rnii(il!l 

•»  \'ir,nini:i 

••  Wf-;  \'ir;;iui; 

••  W'i'ioiisiii     . 


SKf'TION. 

(il 
I'll. 


I.I  r^ , 


•KCTKiN. 


CIIAl'IKIt  III. 


lis 


I'OI.K  ^    ()!■   .U.l.(>\VIN(i   A    l,I.M!:i;i)  I.I  A  lil  l.ll  V, 


:is 


II 


II 
I.". 


IS 

r.i 
.■)i^ 


I'rlicy  ni'   iillou  III;;'  (MlllliU'll  (Mnirr-  |(i  iiiiiil   llli'ir  lillliililV  li\    <MII- 

iriii'l 

WcliirMHi  III' (•iinicr  !(•  "ii-tiiiiirr        ....... 

\'ii'\\  s  III'   ll;c  jll(!;;cs --'liii'  Aiurrinm  ilicililli"  .  .  .  . 

Iii'in:n'l'>  III'  (iMirnw,  It.,  in  ilii.li'iiliain  \.  It^'iiiii'l' 


Sti'li'l  virw  •■  ( 


f  Ni-.licl.  .(..ill  I'i^h  V.  Cliiii 


iiiiiin 


Opinliiii  111'  \\'ii|ilrii.  ( '.  .1..  ill    Mil  lii;;;iii   Smillii'rii    li'i'.iiiu.iil   ('liiii- 


piiiiy 


lllMlllll 


Klalioi'iili' jiiili^'iiiriii  ol'  Mr.  .Iiisiii'c   lliadlfy  in   Kailmail  ('iiin|iaiiy 


V.  I.iii'kwiiud 


.^iinllar  vii'ws  (•\|i|i'--im 


1  in  iiuliv  iihi.il  ii:il;ii'>  in  N'i'w  \i)v\ 


<)|'iuiiill-i  favui'ili:;' till'  n|i[Hi. lie  \ii'\\  ...... 

liii|in'>-it>iw  (if  \\'rlli's.  .1..  ill  I'arsiiiis  V.  Miiiitcnlli 

N'irwsiif  \\'ri;;lil,  .1..  ill  Mnmi'   v.  i^vaiis  .         .         .         .         . 

Ami  III'  W'diiilinff.  .)..  in  I'r.  ncli  v.  {{nrfaln  \r.  I.'ailroaii  ( 'iiin|iaiiy 


(>|iinii 


I'  I'arl 
( 'iini|iany 


.1..  ill   !).irr  V.  Xi'u   .ti'iM'\    Sli'ain   N'a\  ivfalidii 


Of  (ioiiiil.  .1..  in  W.'IN  V.  Ni'w  \'iirl<  'nilral  l.ailniail  ('miiiiany 
Of  Alli'ii.  ■!..  in  Snii'.li  \.  Xi'w  Vnrk  < 'I'lilral  Itailrn.ail  ('iini|iaiiy 
Of  Smith..!.,  ill   I'lTkiii-*  V.  New  Ynrk  ('cnlral   Kailmail  Cni'iiiaiiy         s;; 


Ai.;l  iif  Sriili'ii.  ('.  .1..  in  llii'  -ainr  case 


SO 
SI 

S2 


SI 


CIIAi'TKi:  IV 


,)S 


NOT'CKs  innTiNi;  i.iAi'.ii.r; 


:i:ii;  i;i  ikct. 


i;(> 
111 
(i2 


I 


Xoii( 


'riii'ir  cffccl  in  Kii'.'lanil 


iliisiicc  (if  iiiTiniltin;;'  iinlicr,-.  as  lo  value  ami  clinractcr  (if  ^■o(i(l<    .         S(> 
("lilii'lsni  (in  (ills  piaclifc '7 


M' 


v»l 


TAIJLK  Ol"  CONTKNTS. 


Notl,rsiist..cl.i!,Mcl.'fMii(l  vmIm.'  nf  - V-Y\\^'  nilr 

rin'cii-oiiiililc  i'li;ii-fj;cs  nol  iiciiiiillril 

Notici wliiii  si'vcr.i!  If  •        • 

Coiillii'iiiii;  mill  Mmlii,u:iiiiii--(()iiiliiioiis 

Witliiiiit  iiDlii'c  no  iliity  Id  stale  valiu'     . 

Ni.r  when-  ciirrifr  liiis  iiIIkt  iiifnniiiiiioii 

Notice  not  (•(.miilieil  Willi  "o  recovery  al  all 

Notice  may  lu'  waiveil  by  earlier        .... 

Kxiciil  of  notice        .        .        .        •        • 

M(.(|c- of  ;:iviiie- iiolii f  liniiieil  li.il.iliiy 

Ailverliseiiielils 

I'.istiii    notices  —  i'lacanls 

The  use    f  receipts  iv^oricil  to  — 'I'lie  Kiifxlisli  ••  Canic 

Notices  o  ily  iin>iiosals  for  coiiiracis 

Assoiit  from  acceptiiij,'  \\;\\)c\>  coiilaiiiiii>j  coiilraci 

Oilier  cases  sliowinu;  assent  to  terms  of  notice 

What  not  sutVieient  evidence  of  assent 

Notices  attached  to  pjipers  containin,;:  contr'ct 

liailroad  and  stcamlioiit  tickets 

llajl^^ajie  cheeks 

Mamii-r  of  itrinting  notices  


Aim 


si;( 

■rii'a 


"s  Act 


ri<tN. 

,ss 
Ml 
!ll) 
!ll 
!t2 
!i:( 
!lt 
!)■) 
!l(l 
i»7 

its 

Hi  I 

1111) 

1(11 

10-i 

w.\ 

104 

KKi 
1(»7 
1(»S 


CHAPnOU   V. 


CONXtiACTS  LIMITING  I.lAllll.lTV  AM)  TllKIli  KKl'KCT. 


Character  of  einploymont  not  elinn::"!!  by  conlract 

Tlxcept  in  sjiecial  cases 

Contract  how  evidenced  

Bills  of  ladiiifT 

Written  conlract  conclusive 

Effect  of  siihsoiinenl  delivery  of  wriliiijjs  limitina;  llahilit; 
Collateral  ajireement  or  suppleiiicntary  contract  may  lie  s 
Other  cases  where  parol  evidence  adinissihie — I'"raiid  — 

—Duress 

The  Kniflish  ••  i{ail\vay  and  Canal  Tralllc  Acl  "• 

'•  .Fust  and  reasonable  condilioiis '■  .... 

Conditions  not  "jnst  and  rer.sonablo"' 

Conditions  sustained  hy  the  American  courts 

T'lm'asoniible  ami  void  conditions         .... 

]{ef;iilations  in  the  transportation  of  live  stock 

Cleans  of  carryin;^  out  conditions  iniisf  he  provided     . 

Insnrance  

Usag:es  and  eiistoms 


hown    . 
Misiiikc 


10!t 
11!) 
ill 
11-J 

li:! 
Ill 
11.-) 

111! 
117 
lis 
11!) 
1-Jl) 
I'Jl 
Vll 
VIW 
VIA 
125 


i 


% 


TION. 
SH 
S!l 
110 
i>l 
«)•-> 

".a 
M 
05 

!i7 

lis 

'.111 

nil) 

101 

lo-i 
io:< 

104 
1(15 
10(i 
107 
los 


4 
4 


TAlll-K  ()K  CONTKNTS. 
CIIAl'IKIJ  VI. 

I.IAIll.,l  1  >    MirwrillsTAMUMi  (  <)Nri{.\<  T  — Nr.dMlll'.NCK. 


Till'  (lt';:;ri'i'^  uf  nr'^li'^t'iict'        ..... 
ii'rasiiii-'  fur  till'  ili .  i^ioii  ..... 

|)i>ciii'(hllll  (Irrisjiill  <  ...... 

N'it'ws  <if  till'  Kiiixli^li  jiiilj,fi's         .... 

Till'  Aiiii'i'ii'im  ilt'ciiliir      ...... 

ruwcT  to  {•((iiiriici  ii.niiiiisl  iicjillyiciicc  —  In  I)' filinid 
I'owcr  lo  f(iiilrai't  :i;,';rni<t  iir;j;li;;ciii'(' —  In  Anii'iicii 
Fiiiliirf  ti>  Mppri^i'  cari'lfr  of  valuer  iumI  ((.iiimiI  ■ 
( '(Piiliiliiilury  iii',i;li!;'i'ii<'<' of  liiiiloi"     .... 

'I'lif  rule  ill  New  NorU     ...... 

Disciiidaiil  (li'ci-idiis  .  .... 

Oilier  I'ascs  in  iiic  rarria;,^!'  iif  live  -ln'  1» 

I'^N  idfiicc  (if  ni'ulijri'iicc     ...... 


ix 


(r.Ul.Kll'.NCK. 

>1 , 

TION. 
I'>it 

1-J7 

j-JM 

1-JO 

i:u) 

i:ti 

V.\-2 

!;t;j 

i:n 

in.-) 

i:)(i 

i:{7 

i;i8 

CIIAI'TKH    VII. 


I.IAIIII.' I  V    NOTWrrilSTANKINd     ('()NTi:A(T — 1 HCV 1  AllON.    DKI.AV.    KTC. 


ini> 

110 

HI 

ll-J 

111! 

Ill 
II.-) 

iii; 

117 

lis 
nil 
rjo 
i-ji 

1-J2 
1_M 


M 


I'lrt'i'ct,  of  (Icvialiciii  from  terms  of  eoiiiraet 
i'oiilraei  lo  I'orward  hy  |iailieiilar  ve>->el 
j'lxeeiiliolis  ill  idiitiael   lust   hy  (levialioli 
l»e\ialioii  1p.\  c'diiiieeiinj;' f;iiiier     . 

Conseiil  of  shipper 

I'ailiire  to  ohey  r  ijiilalions    .... 
Liability  for  loss  eaiiseti  by  delav 
Coiilracls  eoneei-iiiiiii,'  delay  eoiistnied 
("ontraets  to  deliver  in  spceilied  time —  reiialty 
.Vliaiidoiimeiit  of  eoiilrael  —  .Mall'easaiiee 


ClIAl'TKU  viir. 

Til!-:   CONSTIUCTION    Ol'    CONTliACTS    LIMITING    I.IAIUMTY, 

Tlio  I'liited  States  Statutes  as  to  carriers  by  wiitcr 
K>;eeptions  in  tin'  I'oiilrj'.ets  of  earriers  t'onstriied  strictly 
The  niaxlin  cxprcssio  nniiis  est  pxeliisio  alteriiis 
Opinion  of  IMi^elow,  (.'.  .J.,  on  llie  appliciition  of  the  maxim 


i:»;t 

1-10 
141 
11-2 

u:i 

144 
14,-) 
14(i 
147 

MS 


140 
!.-)() 
151 
152 


! 


V 

sr 


.(•^-W^U^.^jIfcfca, 


% 


■r.\)W-K  <)!'  co.Vir.NT.-', 


M",(  TION. 


'i't'nii:- ill  insiirMiii'i' iii>licios  am!  liilN  i>f  l;!(liii.ii-  (i.ii- (lutd  diftVr- 

cnlly 

Iiitcrpirtiitidii  (if  words  aiul  ..liiasrs  ill  (■(iiilr.icis 

••  Accidcii'.al  hclays" 

••  AlCl'ccs  ■■ 

•Ail  Hail- 

••  Arlicli'" 

'•  ]iaj;-;;-am'" 

■•  JJri'aka/^'c."    :  cc  ••  !•  ;!a.!';<' ;!i:i'.  lir.'a;  a.i' "       .... 

••('.  ().  D."  .  

••  ('o;i:('ii!>- liiikiiowii."     Sec  ••  \aliii' and  (('iilcii   ■  i;:.i.!r.\\  ii '" 

••  i»aiiia:ic  " 

■•  l>aii<;i'i's  iiicidciii  Ik  (lii' iia\iii'aii<ii!  of  M;i'  iImt."  y-rr  ••Daii- 
(fcfs  (>f  nini^'aiiiMi  "....... 

•■  ) '':in,:;',"r- of  iia\  iiiatioii.""  ami  iicM'iii  ••  lianuc'i's  iiicIdiMil  lo  llic 
iia\i;;alioii  of  the  iVii-r."  ••daii^'crv  of  llic  lal^i'.""  ••  il,i;:u'i'r< 
lif  (III'  rivi'i'.'"  ••  (laii;;('r-  of  Ilio  sra-."  ■•  iiicviialii''  acri- 
dcii!-:."  ••  |),iiis  of  lilt'  laKi'."  ••  jHTJU  of  till'  ri\  ('!•.■■  ••  jicrils 
of  till'  seas  "  and  ••  uiiavoidaiili'  accident."  Sc(-.alMi  •■  iiii- 
iivoidahlc  aucidciils  "■ 

'•  DaiipTs  1)1'  llic  lake."    Sci' ••  daii;;'"i's()f  iia\  iin'a.lioii  " 

"  Daiifi'iT- of  till' river."'     Sec  ••  dann'i'i's  of  iia'.iualioii  "    . 

' Daiijjcr- of  !lii' roads  " 

••  i>:lllH'(  IS  of  llit'scas."     Sec  ••  daiiu:<  r- of   ll;',vi;valioii  "      . 

••  I  ii'iicicncy  in  i|iiaiiliiy  '" 

••I)l'|10l"' 

'•  lirrors  " 

*•  i'^scajio.-:  ■■  .......... 

••  lixiraordii!.,!  ••  niariii"  1  i-i;  ■■ 

"  Feed,  walcr  :!iid  i:i!.,' ]>r(i|i('r  r.-irc  o' " 

"  iMlC  ■■ 

'•  Foi  ward  '"  .......... 

••  i''n'(v.iii^'" 

'•  Froni  \vlii',(('\('r  cai,,-    ' 

'•(Joo'i  ()rd<  r  iiiid  I'ondillo.  ■■  

••  Heat,  siiffoc'iiioii  and  llic  o  Ic  :  i!':   ■^"c-.-  i  f  '    -    ■■.■  i  rowdc  1  ""    . 
"  Incvilalilc  .•iccidcuis."'    Slh'  "dancirs  of    na\  iiiaiion."  ••  iin.i- 

voidal.'lc  aciMdcni-" 

'•  liilicrcni  di'tciioralioi!  ■■ 

•' Leakage  and  Iircalvap' " 

•'  Load  and  unload  " 

-L.iss" 

"  Owner's  risk  "  

*•  On  lakes  or  rivers  " 

**  (>\\  tlie  tr.iiii  ■ 

••  i'ackajic."    See  "ariiele"  

'•  Torils  of  llic  lake."    See  •■  daiiiicrs  of  navi;>aIiou  " 


i:.;; 

1.V> 

I.-.;; 
I.")? 
l.-.s 

l.V.) 

mo 

ii;-j 
ii;:t 


!(;<; 

1(!7 

](•,;) 

17M 

17! 
172 
17.! 
171 
177. 
171! 
177 
17S 
17!  I 
IS!) 
isl 


is:; 

IS  I 

IS.-, 
isi! 
1S7 

IKS 
ISl) 

I'll) 


m 


TAlUiR  OF  CONTEXTS. 


XI 


mt 

155 
15i( 
157 
158 
15i) 
KiO 
llil 
l(i'2 
1(13 

104 


1(15 
ICf! 
1(17 

]'.VA 
1711 
171 
17-2 
17.! 
17  1 
17.'. 
17(1 
177 
17S 
171' 
ISIl 
\^l 

ls-3 
is;{ 
isl 

].'■'(; 

187 

IS'.) 

mo 

101 


••  I'fiiis  (if  till'  i-ivcr.'"  Sec  ••ilaiii^ici's  of  iiaviiciilion  " 
••  I'l'iiU  of  llic  st'Ms."  Sec  ••  (liiiiLii'is  of  iiavig'iitioii  " 
••  I'crisiiiihli'  properly  "  ...... 

•■  Piloi.  niiistrr  or  niariiuTs  ■■ 

••  Place  of  (lestllialioil  "  ...... 

••  I'oi'l  of  (liseharije  ■■  ...... 

••  Plivile«;-e  of  re-sliippillii' ■■ 

••  (iiiantily  iiiiaraiiteed  ■■  ...... 

••  iJe-itraiiits  of  prliie.'s  "  ...... 

••  Itohlieis" 

••  Siiffocalioii  "  .  ...... 

■•  Tliieves."     See  ■•rolilu'l:   ■■  ..... 

■• 'riii-oii>;li  w  illioiil  liaiislVr  ■■  ..... 

••  Tow  and  assi-it  Ncssejv"  ..... 

••  riiavoidahle  a.'cideiils."'     See  al.-o  ••i'a:i;.;'er-  of  iia\  i;ialioii 
"  \'aiue  and  eoiiteiits  iinUiiow  II '"  ..... 

••    \'ic'iol|-i|l('S>  "......... 

••  Waiered  and  fed  "'  ........ 

••  >\'eatlier.  injiuies  o  'ca^ioneil  hy  "  .... 

Coiilliel  of  laws       .......... 


SK( 


TION . 

1!)2 
l!i;! 
Ill  I 
1!).-. 
1!IC. 
1!)7 
1!)S 

:>()1 
202 
20;{ 
20-1 
20.-. 

2(i(; 

207 
20S 
20!l 
210 
211 


ClIAPrKK  IX. 

Tin:  gll-.STION  OK  CONSIHIMtATION  AS  AKl'KC  riN(!  C'ONTUAC'TS  I.IMITINC 

MAUI  MTV 


.\  eonsideralioii  iii'ees>ary  to  support  the  eontraet 
What  eonsideration  siillleient         ..... 

Caniers  ol  ])asseM<;'ers — l^iiiiiliii"'  liability  for  iie<;;ligoiiee 

Duty  of  earlier  t(t  ltasseii;:;er  ridiiiii' free 

I'owcr  to  evade  liability  in  siieli  ease         .... 

\Vliat  is  a  ji'raniitoiis  i.assciijfer  .... 

'i'lie  ease  of  a  free  pass — the  Ainerieaii  doetrine 

The  doctrine  in  T.oni^iaiia  and  N'ew  Jersey 

'l"hf  (h.cliine  in  New  Yi.rk         ...... 

Presiiniplion  froni  posse>;-ion  of  free  pass 

Criminal  liahililv 


212 
2i:? 
214 
215 
2  Hi 
217 
21 S 
21!> 
220 
221 


ClIAPTKU  X. 

l"(>\Vi;i;s  AM.    MAUIMTIKS  OK    A(iKNT- 

Power  of  a"ent  of  owner  to  contract  with  carrier 


r.| 


^1 


t  ^. 


22:? 


■  T-i-'iiWSViAM** 


Xll 


TAULK  or  CONTEXTS. 


Wlio  air  witliiii  lliU  riili- 

(";inicr  need  mil  cxiiiniiio  iiiillKM-ity 

Xdticc  til  jiriiicipiil 

CiinicrV  kiuiwiciliic  of  ii.aviilV  wiiiit  (if  Mullioiitv 
I.ialiilily  nf  ajiciii  u>  piiin'iiKil 

Power  of  aji'i'iit  of  I'arricrlo  \tt\\\ irracl 

Wiio  art'  \\  illiiii  tliis  rule 

Wlicii  carriiT  not  hoiinil  .        .         .        • 

Acts  of  aji'i'iit  wlii'ii  not  hindiii;;' 

Express,  forwarding;  and  dis|iatcli  eonipanics 


SKCTION. 

224 
225 
22f; 
227 
22S 
22!) 

2:',n 
2:51 
2:i2 
2:i;5 


CH.Vl'lEK  XI. 


CONNECTING    CAKItlKIIS. 


(^^arriajio  beyond  carrier's  route 

J'ower  to  eonlraet  t<i  carry  lieyond  liis  route 
]{i<;li'  to  limit  liis  resi)oiisi))ility  to  Ids  own  route 

But  still  liaMe  in  some  eases  

Wliat  evidenee  of  contract  for  tliv:ii;;.','li  Iranspin-tation 

The  Eng'lisli  doctrine 

The  Anu'rican  doctrine 

Whicli  carrier  may  he  sned 

Constrnction  of  si)ecial  contracts            .... 
\Vlien  connectinji  carrier  may  claim  exemiitions  in  first  c 
When  exceptions  in  contract  with  tirst  carrier  do  not  c 
coiniectiii<j  carrier 


. 

2:11 

,             , 

2;!.-) 

, 

2:{('. 

2:i7 

. 

2;is 

.             . 

2;?i) 

. 

210 

. 

241 

. 

212 

ontract. 

24:; 

nure  to 

2W 


CllAPTKIi  XII. 


TIIK   HI  HHKN  OK    I'lJOOI', 


IJnrdcn  n])on  ciirrier  to  explain  loss         .... 
Ami  to  show  restrictire  conti-aci  .         •         .         .         . 

I?nrden  on  .    irier  to  show  that  loss  is  within  the  exception- 
Unrden  of  1    oof  us  to  lu'iili-ience  — The  American  doctrine 
IJiirden  of  proof  as  to  ne;jfli<i-ence  — Contrary  view 
Burden  of  proof  as  to  neojligenee  —  The  rule  in  Alalia nia 

Contrary  cases  distinguished  

Where  carrier  liabl    in  special  oases  .... 

\Vhei'<'  exceptions  a-e  conditional  .... 

rieadin"' 


24.5 
2I() 
217 
24,S 
24!) 
2.")() 
2.51 
2.V2 
'2'<\ 
2,-)4 


•24r) 

2l(i 
•247 
•24S 
24!) 
2.")U 
251 
252 
25:5 
254 


TAlil.i;  OI'  {ONIKNTS. 


XI II 


CliArTHU   Xlll. 


221 ; 

227 
22S 
22!) 
2:'.0 

2;n 
2:?2 
2;i;t 


IMM'.l'OUTKl)  CASKS. 


2:i4 

2:5('. 
2:i7 

2;!S 

2:v.) 

240 
241 
242 
24:5 

244 


"KCTION. 


I'liu'iiix  liistiraiicc  ('(>ni|mny  v.  Kf'n'  mid  Wcstcni  Triinsporlatiim 
<  '(ini|iany.  —  ruwcr  to  limit  liahiiity  — Kiilc  in  llliiiDis  as  to 
assciil  1(1  (•oiuiitioii- — Ivi^lil  of  iiisiiriT — INiwci' of  carrier 
tit  coiiiracl  fur  liciiclit  of  iiisiiraiici-  —  Iliiiinis  stature  roii- 
sinu'd.  —  I'uiieil  Slates  Distfiet  Coiu'l.  Kaslerii  Distriet  of 
Wisconsin         .......... 

Iv'icliaiiis  V.  Ilaiiseii.  —  <'oiiimoii  carriers  hy  water — I'.xceplloiis 
of  ••  pei'ilsof  llie  sea."  ••  leal<a;^'e.  l)roai<a;^e  of  iMist  "  —  Neij- 
li^'ciice — Hiiidcii  of  pi'oof.  —  liiited  States  Cifciiil  Court, 
District   of  .Massachusetts  

Wertlii'inier  v.  Pennsylvania  Ifailroad  ('oini)any.  —  Assent  to  con- 
ditions in  hi  ii  of  la<lin;i' —  I'Xccptions  from  lossl)y  "•  llr(!  "  — 
Hnrdcn  of  jiroof — Acts  of  .Mol>. —  ['idled  Slates  Circiiit 
Conn.  Soulliern  District  of  \e\v  Y(n'l<  .... 

ilail  V.  rennsylvania  IJailroad  <  'ompaiiy.  —  Status  of  carrier  after 
,-pecial  coiiiraci  —  D»Ma>-  — ■  Destriiclioii  of  ])roperty  by 
moll  —  l';Nce|)tion  from  loss  ••\Virile  in  t  ran -it  or  depots."  — 
I'nited  Slates  Circuit  Court.  Kastern  District  of  I'cniisyl- 
vaiiia 

(iall  V.  Ailam-  lOxpre-s  Company. —  K\press  Company  —  ••  i"or- 
wardcr"  —  Nenliu'enei — Condition  in  receipt  as  t"\aliit! 
of  article — Dniyof  shipper.  —  Snt  reme  ( 'onit  of  the  Dis- 
Iric!  of  ( 'oliimhia  ........ 

15aiik  of  !\en".ucky  \-.  Adaii  s  lOxjiress  Comiiany.  —  Express  Com- 
pany—  laaliility  for  losses  caiir-ed  by  iieuri:;'ence  of  rail- 
road—Condition ii  receipt  limiting;'  liability — I^videnceof 
as-en!.  —  liiited  Si  •, lis  Circuit  (  diirl.  District  of  Kentiickv. 

Burke  v.  Sontlieasleiii  I>;iil\vay  ('ompany. —  I'assenj;er  tickets  — 
(  olid  it  ions  prinleil  i  hereon  —  Notice.  —  I^nnlish  llii;li  Court 
of  .ill-lice.  ( 'omnioii  IMeas  Division  .... 


2.).) 


2r>(j 


25!) 


200 


2(;i 


-/f 


A( 


I 


a: 

A'.i 
Al 
Al 
Al 

Al 
A I 


Al 
Al 
A: 
Al 


Al 

Al 

Al 
Al 

.VI 

A I 
A I 


.TAIUJ-:  or  TASKS  crrKi). 


Nuiiu's  ol  i'!l;ii': 


iVIkm'c  ri'iKii'U'il. 


I  Wlicu 
I  cidcd. 


A(  ,v'in'  si'"lioiis 


I 


I 


\(l;iiii>  \'.  New  Orli'.Mis  'I'dwlioal 
C. il   i,:!.   i'l 


A(lalii>    Hx.   Co.   \'-  I-'c'M'.lrli'U 
\ .  i  iw'AwU'     . 
V.  liny  lies     . 

\.   I.nci) 
\.   Xdi'l; 

V.  l.'ciiLriin     . 
\  .  Sll:irj)U'.--; 
V.  Sli'il;uic'i'.- 

\-.  \\'ils(ill 
A'AWW  ilH.  <  'ii.  V.  \\l;ci'!iM' 
.\;viif\v  V.  Tlic  Cnlitra  !  'd.--;;!     . 
Allii-:;',hi  V.  I'cmi  .... 

Alillilu'i'  V.  (i'.-CM!   \Vr~!M'!l  i;.('l> 
AlM:iy~\ .   (!ri';il   Western    1".   (  'd 

Alili'ii  y.  i'c;ir-()ii         .... 
Alrv;iiulrr  v.  (iivvm'         .      .      . 

V.  (;i'('iMif     .    .    . 
V.  'roroiUd  Ii.  (  (t. 

All'iviJ  V.  Horn- 

AIN'ii  V.  M:icK;iv 

Aiun-rv..  I'll.' 

Aiin;-ic:m  lOx.  ( 'n.  \ .  f  .c  -cm     . 
\.  !'('rkiir~ 
v.  Saiid-i 

v.  Srlii'T      . 

V.  Si'i'o'id  Xal 
l!:ink. 
Am:  •■■.■•nn  'I'l'iiii-.  ( '.i.  v.  .Mocirc 
.Villi;'-  V.  S.''Vi'ii-         .... 
Aiii'i;  >f  I. ill'  V.  Datcr      .     .     . 
Aii,i;'li'  V.  Mi^^N-lpjii  H.  <''>.     . 
Aii'iiiyitmu-  V.  .lacksmi 
AiiiiiiHiy  V.  -K'.iia  1  ii~.  (  'd. 
.\iitojiii'i!a  (.'..  'i'li.'      .     .     •     . 


:.S  Iml.  l.!i> 
■.I  r.ii-!i.  .".-^ 
i->  111.  .-:i 
7  Uiisii.  l.i'.i 
■2  Diiv.  :>r,-i 

:>!i  Iii(l.-JI      . 
77  )'a.  SI.  .■.!(; 
Ill  111.  \x\     . 

>-i  111. :!;'.;!  . 
;ii  x.  Y.  c.k; 
:;;•  cai.  i-2:> 

1  1  Tex.  2'.)(l 
i.'.  <'.  |{.  (X.  s 
:.  K.  lie  S.  ill):! 
i  I  .lur.  (X.  S.; 
;5  (ir:<\-.  :ii:: 
:;  iiiii.  It 
7  Hill.  .">:!.! 
.;.->  [-.('.  (,».  P.. 
.;  ;T;;;:-k.  i:!i; 
1  S|.r:i.'i-'l".  ■Jill 
S  Urn.'  :'.il 

.;i!  111. ::!;:    . 

■':■!    ill.     l.'.S       . 

.".;■)  I'a.  St.  1  10 
-..1  111.  Ml)     . 


.    .   I'^ijs  ;i. 

i 

.    .   ]f<:\7  i. 

.    .    IS7I  i;;.  ii;5, 

.     .    1S72  1:.'.  lliJ.  -I'i'K 

.    .   isc.ii  ;n.  101.  rjs. 

.     .'   |S7()  '.:>.  -y-^. 

.    .i  isdi;  !;!.  7!).   lie.  i:!7. 

.     .;  1S()7  :'.•'.  I-"). 

.     •'  1>;7.1  ■'•■K  ill:!. 

.    .'■  1S7I  ;;■-.  f-^.  i<>:;.  loi. 
1.;:;.  i;s-'. 

I.    .    is7(;  -J  10, 

.    .    is7:i  •">:,.  j;!i;. -jii. 

.     .:   1m'>.")  7.  Kk 

.     .'   IS.",')  7. 

)  ns2.i   ISiM  lb;.  :i:;i!. 

.       .:     Ifnll  ir.l. 

i  ' 

I   1M55  4i;.  :M7.  -lis. 

■   IS  12  1.  .M. 

!   IS  1 1  55.  i;(5.  IS7. 

;    187")  27. 

I   1822  !:.,.  •.>':,. 

!  IS,-)-!-  d-l', 

|S7!J  '211.  I.-,!. 

ISd'l  1(11. 

1S(;7  2(».,  l!^;. 

Isi;7  51).  1 :'.;'..  Ills.  2JS. 

1S7I)  :>s.  11)1.  i(;i. 


I: 


15:; 


.'  1871  5;i.2;i().  212.  2!S. 

.1  iM5S  :!7.  111. 

.■  IV IS  i;^. 

..  IS7;!  :is.  ill  I, 

.!  |S.5<)  1240. 

Ti-ikc-  .;  lil.Ca-.  IS5.1  ISO!)  25. 

1     vMk    {{'.   S.)   ;-;!:!.'  ISIl!)  2!l. 

5  1!.ii.5(il         .     .     .:  1872  21).  !ii5.  is-l.  218. 

I  I 


i;:i  I'a..  St.  ;!'il 
5  A'licli.  :;iis 
1  Siran'rc  i2s 

:•>•;  II!.  :;>i!)    .    . 
1.  I,)v  a.  '■■:      . 


XVI 


TAllI-l-;  OK  CASKS  (M'i'KI). 


N'anu'M  of  ciim'.'*, 


\y\wu 

Where  ri'piiiicd,  dc- 

( idi'd. 


At  wind  s'(  tidii.- 
( ill  d. 


Aroiitl    V.    I,i\('ri)i)ol    ivc.  Sleaiii  |  i 

('(> II  i.:iii>.  i."i!i     .   .    .  isr-j  :„•;. 

(i!   J?il!'l>.  IIS 
A-lnnoic  v.  I'ciiii.  Sii',1111   'i\>\\- 

li.iat  Cii -JS   \.  ,1,    (I.,-\\i  ISO.     !m;I)  I.  .")|.  1,-(). 

Arclicr  V. 'I'lic  Ailrialic        .     .     . '.i  (en;.  I,.  .1.  Li)l        .  \-7U  IsO. 
Ati'liisdii   Ac.    li.  Cii.    V.  \\a-li- 

1)111  II.  ."   X;'!>.    I!  7  ...  i-'/!;  Id.  ."lO. 

.Uw'idil   \.  iJclin-.ii'c  'I'rr.'i.-'.  Co.  :i  \'i'.iM- .  >7       .     .     .  l>:>!i  .")'.».  7(i.  Itl. 

.Vii>;ili   V.  .M:i!ir|ic>iiT  c.r.  J,'.  Ci.  II  i::i:.;-.  |,.iV  Ivi.  .'.ww.  is"-.*  12!). 

V.  >i;;!ir|icsier  ivc.  )!.  (  II.  10  C.  i!.  i.M      .'    •     .  is.'.i)  •_>.■). 

V.  Maiii-lii'siiT  iVi'.  I!.  ('i>.  Ii;(^>.  li.  (;ili)      .     .     .  I'.il  ■2'i. 

V. 'r.'ilk       l;i 'l'e:<.  Ill'       .     .     .  Ivi7  i';;.  I.si). 

Ayciv  V.  Wi'MiTii  (• 1  !  Diaichl. :,'     .     .     .  I'N'd  -J;!.  l(l.'».  l.",(l    liid 

■j:.7. 

Ayiiiar  V.  .\s!:ir :!  <  i.w.  i;i;:;       .     .     .  is-ji!  .":,.  l-j.',.  ii;,-,. 


'I 


Bahciirli   V.    [.akr  .^.jiori'    \c.   1{.  '  i 

*'" in  \.  Y.  ':i!     .    .     .    1S7-J   .•..-..  j;;i;.  lM;i   -'il 

li  Mdv.  ;•;■.  Ilir 
Eii'-klioiL-i' V.  Siicnl I  .Mm  I'll.  I,;'. 


B.ikci'  V.  ]; 


I'lllvllll 


.    .    .  :i  lli''!i.  >:>.(_'.)  iliil.       is.'it;   M.  Imi.  j;;). 


.:,  ■•III. .(.,;i 


V.  3i;i'liii;;m  I'lic.  If.  Cii.      .  1-2  111.  V: 
Biildwiiiv.  .Viiurieaii  j;\|)i(-;-(''i.  :;.;  !ll.  I'. 7     . 

V.  (  'iillill- :>  ),•,•,!;.    iiiS 

r>:'!l('niiij('  V.  Xnrtji  .■\!i->.iiiiri   i;. 

<'<: ill  .'i:i.  i:;! 

E;i!.iiii;)ri'if.i-.  R.Co.  v.  l!r:iM\- 

V.  :'i.v,iii!i- 

ni'v  :;,;  ha!,  ii'd  .  . 
V.  !ialiil)iiiif  I  W.  \a.  S7  .  . 
V.   Srliiiiiia- 

I'lur      J'.i  .\M.  Id-:        .     . 
-,  ,  .  V.  Ske.'i>       :;  \V.    \'a.  ."i."i;; 

J<:iilllilori'  iVc.   S!('aii!!;(iai    Co.   v. 

,'''■"" !i .-.;  l>a.Si.77      .     . 

ll;'ii'.'ri)ft  v.MiTcii.  !>is.  'l"r;!ii;..Co.  17  !ov.  :'.■•!;  > 
Bnnkof  KcnUiickyv.  Ail.Mii-  I'.x- 

|M-|'..-  <•■..     I    (•.■ii(.    ;„  ,1.   I.ai 
V.  .\ilaiiis  !■;:,- 

i)n-.s  (_'ii.  •.)■:,  r.  s.  171     .    . 

„     ,      ,  •  I  Ccn;.  !..  .1.  :■.-, 

I'-iiihvanl  V.  Bal-iiiiDiv  I*;:,..  |;.  r<,.::i   \\,l.   i;j7 


Hi 


Biiliii;-  V.  IMoiiiis.; 

I5;invi;  V.  I!o.;'(  rs      .     .     . 

JJiiitir  V.  \\  hi  (jiT 

liiitsoii  V.  Dmiavai!     .     .     '. 

lillWrV  V.  Lclallll     .... 

15;i/iii  \.  .sicaiu-l,ij)  Co. 

B*';iii  V.  (IriTii 

Bcal  v.  Soiiiii  i'l'viiii  U.Co." 
S:inili  Devon  JJ.  Co. 
Bi'iuve  V.  ]^4K'sl.         .     . 

Bofk  V.  Kvaiis       ,    .     . 


Ill     >'-    I     •  ]  - 

7  Aid.  Dec.  ()7i) 

.7.M-i^s.  L':'7       . 

i:i  X.  II.  II     . 


I  >dii    ,;,-:. 

i-^'-i  1.2;;:;. 

!■■;•"'   !:;.  !)i.  ;iL'.  m.  vs 

ii'd. 

,i''';v  :;. 

iMi''      !•">.   1<I|,2IS. 

!'7i    :;:).  isd. 

l-d.:     i|ii. 

!Ni;s  lid). 

l'-'ii;i   d'.;. 

\^'''7    ::.K  I !.-,.  :>2|i. 
I ■^•77    id.  u::,-  .  21 !. 

1^7 1   2;^.  2:;:;.  2(;o. 

l'-7d    2!i.7it.;(i:i.Il:;.|7(; 

2.;:;.  2:.;..  257. 
1.^7it    I.".  •'.•■' 
IM-^    1...  ;;l. 


'"■■'■  -■>-^-'.i^".i7i;.2ii 

•  :  15:iii;.  i\.  Al.j.  2i      .     ls2l)    ,-(1.  :t|. 


Aiili.  A(iin.:',.iS 
.:;  W.all.Jr.  221t      . 

■  >i   >!<'.    122       . 

■  ■■■  U.  i*:  c.  :!;;7     . 

•  •'  il.  c':   \.  :.7:^      . 

•  I  Sjira;;!!,..  :!;.! 
i 

•  Ki  K:;.-i.  2!f      .     . 

,;>  (.'Midi'.  2(17 


l«l>:    2;'.  ]J.:,.  Km. 
''•■■'7    2:t.  12.1.  1  iO.    Id."). 

2!-.. 
1  "-"!.■"'    I  !.  1!)!.  2';; 
I*- if     ii>-. 

i><;d  lis. 

I^'^'i!    -J.i.  Id,-,.  21.-).  2  IS. 

2::d. 
1.^12  s,.  2d. !);;.  vs.). 


Bt 
!:i 


I  In 
I'.r: 
1:11 
iin 
Mil 
iiy] 
!!ii 
I'.ri 
I  in 

Hi-o| 

l!n 

lin 


mmmm 


TABLE  OF  CA.SES  CITRD. 


XVll 


!:.iinf.-t  of  c'liHCs, 


III  '■"<  I  inns 
iti'l. 


1,-0. 


». 

■>.   l.'.O.  lliil. 

-..  1(1."'. 

11.  -J!;!.  •_•!  I. 

II.  U!!i. 

.  '.IJ.  ".i|.  '.'S. 

1.2  IS. 


;;.  -im. 


;()iMi;;.i7(t 


i:iiM7i;.-:ii 
[.').  1  io.  !i;r>. 


i;.  -is.i. 


;.-!  •>!:..  -MS. 


!.  !):t.  i:i:;. 


Bcckford  V.  ( 'nitwcU 
]{('cl<iiiiiii  V.  Slioiisc 

Bl'lllisl.  'I'lic  V.  1'.<><)I1 

Hi'lj;i'r  V.  DiiisiMDic 
lU'll  V.  licail  .  . 
BpIIoiiu.  '1'Im'      .     . 

I'.clllll'tt  V.  Dllllnll 

V.  I'ilviiw 


WhriT  irpin'tcd. 

:>  ('.  i<  1'.  212     , 
r.   Itiiwlc.   17!»      , 

10    .Mil.   .•.il        .     , 


\.  Y.  IM 

.     .     .  !    15! ;i.    I27 
.     .     .!|    Itni.  :,\M 
.     .     .  I0.\.  11.  ISl 

.    .    .il  Fill,  lo;', 


\U')<^  V.  N:iir;i,i;;ins('U   Slciiinsliii) 

Co. '  ..■)   Daly.  ;;i)|       .     . 

BlMTV  \.  <'i>iii)i'i' !2S  (J;!.  ,■)!;'.         .      . 

Betl.«  V.  Fariiicrv"  Loan  Co.     .     .!_M    Wis.   >'()       .     . 

Bt'vcr  V. 'rnmliii-iiii lAliW.  (Hi  Sliij).  IlSfl. 

r>i;;ii'>l(l  V.  \\:ili'rliuiisc  .     .     .     .J!  ,\i;iii.  tS:  Scl.  -.I'u). 
Hinirlinm  v.  1v(il;-.t> I(i  W.  A  S.  lO,'- 


Bin!  V.  Crniiiwi'll        

Birki'lt  V.  Wiilaii        

Biriu'V  >.  N'l'v    Ymi.:  i^ic.  'rci.Co. 

BisM'li    V.  Caiiij'lii'il 

V.  New  \>>vk  ( 'ciii.  K.  1  "ii. 


1  Mo.  M        ... 

2  B. .«;:  AM. ;!:.(;    . 

IS  Mil.  ;mi       .     . 

;.i  X.  v.  :(.-):{ 

2.-)  N.   V.  112    .     . 


V.  New  York  ( 'cii; .  |{.  ( 'o.  2'.)  Barb.  (102 

Biivcii  V.  liiiil-oii  iMvn-K.  Co.      ii'iX.Y.  |o:{ 

!lii(l.-oii  l!i\('r  U.  Co.     jilir.Miii.  jSS 

Blossom  V.  Doilil        i!.!  N.  Y.  201 


(iril)in 

Blimi  V.  Soiiilicni   I'lillinaii   I'al- 

aci'  ( 'ar  <  'o 

BliiiiH'iitlial  V.  Braiiicnl      .     .     . 
Bodciihaiii  V.  BciiikMI     .     .     .     . 

Bond  V.  'IMic  Cora 

!5ooii   V.  'I'lic   Bi'll'asi       .     .     .     . 


i;;x.Y.  500     . 

;{  Cent.  L.  J.  .■)!)! 

;fs  \'i.  102 
!  I'lii'c.  :<i 
2  r.'!.  Adiii. .:;:? 

I(!  Ala.  ISI 


Boormaii  V.  .Viiii'i'icaii   Kx.  Co.     rJl   Wis.  l.-»2 
Boskowii/  V.  Adams  Ka.  Co.     .  .'>  (.'cut.   L.  J.  .jS 


Adams  !•;>;.  Co. 


I  Cent.  L.  J.  :i8<j 

Bo^t^vi(•l^v.  Biiliimorc  »!<:(•.  K.Co. -l,")  N.  Y.712      . 
V.  Cliaiii|)ioii    .     .     .     .|11   Wt'iid.  571 

Boswcll  V.  lliuisiMi   KiviM-  K.  Co.!.-)  Bosw.  (ilil)      . 

i|0  Aid).   Pr.    112 

Bowcii  V.  New  YorkCiMit.  IJ.  Co.jlS  X.  Y.  -lOS      . 

Bovfc  V.  .Viidcrsoii 12  I'd.  ITiO     .     . 

California  Sta^^'e  Co.     .I2.-)  Cal.  400 
Wclcli .->  La.  .Vnn.  02;{ 

Bovk- V.  .Mcl.anithlin      .     .     .     .'lI!.  iS;  ,1. 201     . 

Bradsiivi-i  V.  llcran i2  r.lalchf.  1  l(i 

riraiiiT  v.  Tlif  .Mmoncr       .     .     .1|S  I.a.  .\nn.  200 

Breeze  v.  ('Mili'd  States  'I',.].  Co.jlS  N.  Y.  i;{2     . 

Brclim  V.  (Jivat   Western  J{.  <'o.';M  B;iil).  250      . 

Bicdnne  v.  Adams  Hx.  Co.      .     .125  Md.  :{2S   .     . 

Briirji:s  V.  Vandefhill       .     ,     .     .119  Barh.  222     . 

r.rind  v.  Dale !S  C.  A  V.  207    . 

I'.rintnall  v.  Saraioi;-a  i^c.  Jt.  Co.  ;{2  Vt.  005    .     . 

l?foad\ve|l  V.  Butler !l   Xewb.  171     . 

;o  McLean.  20t; 

Brock  V.  Gale ill  Fla.  .52:! 

Bi-ooke  V.  IMckwlck |l  Biiij;-.  218 

Bfossean  V.  The  Hudson     .     .     .Ill  La.  Ami.  427 


Wlicii 
(le- 

cltlcd. 

ls:!2 
l,s:!5 
1S07 
IS72 
ISIO 
1S71 

is:!<) 
1S47 

1S74 
1S51» 
ISOO 
1700 
IKK! 
1S4:{ 
1S21 
ISl!) 
1802 

is7;{ 

1S(!2 

ls.5i) 
|S07 
ISOl 
1,S70 
1S.50 


.\t  wlmi  sections 
clKiil. 


9. 

50.  10(1.  1.5!). 

l:;. 

20.  .55.  ii:{,  no. 

0.  .50. 

20.  i;;s,  207. 

.51. 

:U;.  210.  247,  218. 

•242. 

;{7,  125,240. 

2:1.  (17,  i;i7. 

151,  1.52. 

21.  S.5. 
50. 

.50.  105. 

0.  BW. 

45. 

.55,  l!)!t. 

2S,  .5,5,70.128,212. 

2i:{,  217,  220. 

220. 

Ir. 

)5.  102.  105,  107. 
)5.  100.  110. 


1S7(!    1. 
ISOO  |04.  101. 

1817  |o.  71.  i:!:5. 

1S07     11. 

isdii  !i:{. 

ISOO  ,07. 102,  no. 

1S77  '20.    88.   O;!.    101, 
il:!8,2;W.  240. 

1870  ;8s.  ii;i.  104,  116, 

1:1S.  1,58.  2X\. 

1871  55.  114.  lUO,  157. 

18;!4    212. 

I   1800  155,  ];i5.  220. 
I 

1S,58  '220. 
'   1S20    215. 
:   ISO!    245. 
!   18.50  i4;{.105. 
I   1817  '45. 

1840    20.  ISO. 

1800  4:i.  1S4,  248. 
1871    .55. 

1801  .245. 
1800  :45.  102. 

!  18.55  -242. 

I  ls:{7  11,51. 

I  1800  '210. 

i  1854  120.  1(15.  108. 

j  i 

1874  :$0.  140. 

!  1827  i2().  2(1,  00. 

I  185(1  0. 


i 


H&SmfHHHm:* 


■/I 


XVI!1 


TAULK  Ol"  CASKS  crrKi). 


Niinii'  "I  rifi'i. 


Wlicri'  r('|)iirt('(l. 


I  Wlii'ii 


Al  wliiit  si'C'tlons 
cited. 


Brown  v.  C'linnliMi  iScf.  |{.  {'. 


Clll.Moll 
KiiMcrii  l{.  Cii 


,'s;{  Pii.  SI.  ;iut 
in  ciish.  1)7 


I'** 


.")!».  !I2,  'Jll, 


IS,");;    k;.  iih; 


Browiiiiiir  V.  L.m.r  Isluiid  |{.  C().|2  Diilv.  li; 


|4:{  l(.v. 

Ill  iilis 

!I7  Mms 


.:.( 


l-il 


Brush  V.  S.  A.  iS:  U.  J{.  Co. 
Bryan  v.  Mcni|iliis  iVc.  If.  (Jo.    . 
Bnokliintl  V.  .\(I:iMi-i  Kx.  ('('.    .     . 
Bu(!kni!i.slei' V.  (irral  Kastcrn  R. 

Co 
Bnlkley  V.  Xaunikca^' Cotton  C'o.jiM  How.  ;)S() 


isi; 
isr 


.:..  iL'l. 


III. 
1S7.-)  I-J. 
1SII7    Id.  nil.  J2I.  2.!;i. 


I..  'I'.  (V.  S.)  171  .j   1S7()    I  Hi. 


Nanmki'ii^' Steam  (Jot- 
Ion  Co 


1 1  Cliff.  ;i-J2 

';!  K.-p.  (17   . 


Biiller  V.  Fislie 

Bnrko  v.  Soiillieasteni  1{.  Co 

Biiriiliani  v.  (irand  'riiiiik  R.  Co.  (>;!  Me.  Jiis. 

Biirroiij'lis  v.  .Norwielutc.  H.  t-'o.  HM)  y\.\'<.  2(1 


Burton  v.  NVilkinson 
Bntlor  V.  The  Arrow     . 
T'.iitier  V.  Jleaiie     . 

Cailiff  V.  I)anv(Ms 

Caiifoi'iiia.  'I'he 

Camden  Ac.  II.  Co.  v.  Baldanf.'ld  I'm.' Si.  (i 
V.   Biirke    .  K!  Wend.  (Hi 
V.  Forsvlh.dl  I'a.  Si.  s| 


lis  Vl.  1S(!  . 
,'(>  .Mel.i'an.  170 
.2  Camp.  11.') 

,!l  iVake.  l.M 


!:>  S, 


iw\ 


Camdon&o.  Transp.  Co  v.  Bell 

Cameron  v.  Kicli 
V.  Kieh 
Ciiin])  V.  ][aitfoid  Ae.  Steamboat 


Co 
Campbell  v.  M 


nap.'21  Wend.li.M      . 
I  Sti'olih.  llis     . 
;.")  Kieii.  (S.  C.)  ;!.")2 


linn.  I!:!:; 


ors(f 


.14:?  t 
Harp.   I'lS 
21  Wis.  'iS-l 


Candeo  V.  Pennsylvania  J{.  C 

CantlinK  v.  llaniiihal  iSrc.  H.  Co.;.")4  .Mo.  lis.' 

Cantti  V.  Bennett        !;(!)  'iVx.  :;(i;{ 

Capeliart  v.  Seaboard  itc.  J{.  ( 


O.   ti 


y.v.:w, 


,  i;  B 


;en.  ."iil-_'. 


Carey  v.  Atkii 

Carpne  v.  London  Ac.  1?.  (jo.     ,;.-)  q.  li.  717 

Carr  v.  Lancashire  Ac.  R.  Co  .7  Exch.  707 


V.  The  Michigan 
Carson  v.  Harris    .     . 
Carter  v.  Peck        .     . 
Cash!  11  V.  Wright 
Casco,  The    .... 
Cas.sllay  v.  Young 
Caton  V.  RnmiK'v 
Central  Line  v.  Lowe 
Cbami)lon  v.  Bostwi(^k 
Chasca/riie       .    .    . 


|7Railwav  Cas.  I2(i 


Ml 


11(1 


.i  1  (t.  Glcene.  ."ilO 

.1  S (I.  JOli 

.,'(!  E.  A-  15.  SIM  . 
.jDavei^.  jsi 
.4  B.  Mon.  2(;:>  . 
.'i;i  Wenil.;!S7  . 
.;."iO  (ia.  ,V»li  . 
.'IS  Wend.  17.")  . 
L.  R.  I  .V(lni.4l(J 

|2;;  L.  T.  (X.  s.) 

II  L.  .1.  Adm.  17 


ISiiO    (1.  21).  lii."i. 

is.')!i  20.  n;."). 

ISIKI     1(1,-,. 
201. 

is7;i   II.  100.  2;tii. 
isiis    III.  110.  2:;i.  2:;o. 

210. 
isk;   17. 

IS.V)    ill.  l.-,(). 

isiii  ill).  los. 

1 7112  !i. 

1S71  21».  ISii.  207. 

ls.')|  20.  ."):'.  100.  i,-.;i. 

is:!.-,  ir,. 

ISOl)    ,-.!).  2:iO.  240.  214. 

is:i!)  I.. v.. 
is:)i)  (11.  211). 


IS 


">2    01.  2111. 


1S70  ;m. 

1S2I  ;{7. 

lSli7  24: 

1S7;!  ,-)ii. 

ls7;{  i;;!. 


211, 


IS77  .■)(;.  120. 

1S7;!  21).  ISI.  24> 

IS  14  24.-.. 

is.-i2  10.  2.').  70. 

1S.\S  ,-)().   ]1)N. 

1S.-.4  I!).  ISi). 


lv,-.(! 
ls.-)(i 


210.  212. 
211. 


s:is. 


Chase  V.  Washington  Mm.  Ins.  (^o.  12  Barb.  :,:\:> 
Chcvalller  V.  Straham     .     .     .       ''rex    ]\; 
Clilcago  &c.  n.  Co.  V.  Ackley      . Dl  C.  s.  171') 
V.  Monlford.liO  111.  17.-.  . 


Is42  li;,-..  200. 

isi:{  12.111. 

ls;;.->  1. 

ls7;i  .-..  ;{7.  200. 

Is:i7  212. 

is7.-)  i.'iii.  ii;.-,.  2:)(; 


IS.-.2  2,- 
1S47    0. 


V.  P('oi)l( 


r.o  111.  :!u,-) 


1570  !. 

1571  US.  2:10 
IS70    240. 


!I0. 


!l.  -J.'.il. 


lis. 


TAULK  OF  CASKS  CITED. 


XIX 


XftlllCH  of     <'llHt'H, 


AVliorc  rcportPd, 


7  IJiiilwuv   ('us. 
IS  I'll.  St'. '224     . 

l."t  Minn.  270 


— —  I 

Cliicii^i)  Af.  n.  <"(>.  V.  'I'liompson  1!)  111.  .'■)7S  . 
Cliililsv.  i.illU'  .MiiMiiii  K.  Co,     .  I  ('in.  IS(i  . 
(  iiiiipcni'   'i'  y.  I.iinrnsiiirc  Scv.  11. 

Co         .  .         .  .  .  .7  Ifiiilw  !iv 

('liolllc.uix  V.  I. ('cell  .... 

Clirislcnson  v.  Anicriciin  Kxprcss 
C) 

Ciiiisiiiin  V.  St.  Piiul  i'lcc.  R.  Co. 'JO  Minn.  -Jl 
Cliiistic  V.  (iii;x;js  .         .         .  2  Cinnp.  7'.l 

Cliiilil)  V.  KiMiaml  .         .         .2(;l,ii\\  K'i'p.  102 

Ciiicinniiti^c.   K.  Co.  v.  Marcn^.HS  111.  2iil  . 

V.  roMlins.  l!M)|iio.st.  221   . 

V.  Sprall    .  2  Diiv.  1     . 
Citvof  Ilartfoid.'riifV.'nicrMil.  li  nialclif.  2!I0 
Ndrwiili.  'I'Ik'      ....  I  Hen.  271  . 

1  Hen.  S!(    . 


.S2I. 


Clark  V.  nurnwcll 

Clark  V.  l''axton 

V.  St.  I.I 
Clarke  V.  (iray 


1  Hen.  S!(  . 
;!  IJiMi.  ."•(;.">. 
;i2  How.  272 

,..,..M. 2(!  Wend.  l."):{ 

V.  St.  I.onis  cS:.'.  J{.  Co.       .(II   Mo.    110 

••   ' ,1)  East.  .■)(;! 

j2  Sniilli.  (122 

|4  Ksp.  177 

V.    Hoclicslor  I'if.    U.  Co.  1 1  N.  Y.  .")70       . 

(lay  V.  Willaii         .         .         .        .  1  II.  I$1.2!)S 

( 'la\  Ion  V.  Hunt       .         .         .       .  2  Camp.  17 

CliVclanil  l^t(•.  K.  Co.  v.  Cm-ran.  IJiOliioSt.  1      . 

V.  IVrkins  17  Midi.  2'.)(;      , 

Clvdc  V.  (iravcr       .         .         .       . .')!  I'a.  St.  251     . 

Co'alrs  V.  I'nittMl   States  Ex.  Co.  !.">  Mo.   2:;s 

Cotidcn  V.  Holton  .  .         .  2  Camp.  lOS 

Colli)  V.  .\l)liol  .         .         .      .11  I'ifk.  2S!l 

Cocliian  V.  Dinsnioif       .        .       . -IK  N.  Y.  210      . 

('oMln  V.  New  York  Cent.  J{.  Co.  CI  Hail).  :570      . 

('o--;;s  V.  HiMiiard.         .         ,         .  2  l.d.  Havm.  00!) 

;i  Sniilirsl.d.Cas.lU.*) 

Cohen  V.  Soiilli   Eastern  K.   Co.  E.    |{.  2  Ex.   1).  2."):5. 

V.  Soiilliern    Ex.   Co  .  |.">  (ia.  1  IN. 

Coif  V.  (ioodwin      .         .         .      .  10  Wend.  2.">1     . 
i<  .11 t 'I'l...  1  i>i....i.   i-ji 


Collenheiji'.  The 

( 'ollender  v.  E'lnsniore 

( 'oilier  V.  \'alentine 
Cnjlins  V.  Bristol  I've.    I{.  Co 

V.  I{risloK<:e.  U.  Co. 

V.  Hmiis 

V.  Hnrns 


<'<donel   Eeilvard.  The 
Coll   V.  Mf.M'eclien 

.')  Am.  Dee. 
Colton  V.  Clevcdand  i<:e.  H.  Co.  (17  I'a.  St.  2 
Coimnhia  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lawrence.  10  Tet.  .")07 
4'ohmil)o,The         .         .         .         . :{  Blatelif.  .1 


10  Wend.  2:>1 
I  IMaek. 170 
(11  Ilarh.  l.V.     . 
.■).■»  X.  Y.  200 

11  Mo.  200 

I  II.  I's:  N..-.17    . 

II  Ex.  700 

lid  N.  Y.  (S.  ('.)  .-)1S 
(i:!  N.Y.I. 
1  Sprai^ue.  .");iO. 
(i.lolni^.  KJO 
5  Am.  Dee.  200 
" 11 


lien 
lie- 
lied. 


At  wliiit  MCftlons 
elU'il. 


It 


S,-|S  20. 

S71  .•)7. 

s.-.l  2.'>. 

S.-)   12.  .^O.  II.'..  11(1, 
K!.-.. 

.S70  1.  IS.  102.  1(15. 

22;i.  221. 2;{:{.  2(10. 
s7;t  IS.  121. 

S0!»  215. 

Sdl  2:5.  20.  21S. 

S(!5  20. 

S(j!»  57.  102.  21 S.  2:i5. 

2;i(i. 

S(J5  212. 

S7:t  MO. 

S70  20. 

S(I(i  I  10. 

SdO  1(15.17(1. 

S51  7.  20.  1(15.  20 

2  IS.  2.5(1.  257. 

SIIO  l.,55. 

S77  .50.  218.  254. 

S(t5  25.  04.  0(1,  151 


S.5d  14.  1(1.  220. 

7S0  25.  04. 

Sll  00.  lOS. 

SdO  57.  217.  21S. 

SdS  47.114. 

S(!7  50.  125. 

S70  .50.  242. 

SOO  01. 

suit  212. 

S72  .55.  KIS.  2.52. 

S72  .55.  114. 

70:$  :«.  4.  5.  Ill,  ]2d. 

151.  220. 

S77  IS7. 

S72  240. 

s:!s  1.  .55.  SS.  00,  135. 

Sdl  14. 

S7:{  55.  113,  11(1.  125. 

Idl.  242. 

S4S  50.  1(15. 

S5d  2;$7,  2:in. 

s.5d  2;io. 

S7:$  55.  14S. 

S75  55.  14S. 

SdO  22. 

SIO  5. 

S70  50.  102,  170.  248. 

s:id  2.55. 

S,5d  20.  207. 


xx 


tahm;  or  casks  rrrKi). 


XllllllS  (if    rllNCH, 


Where   reimrled. 


('iillillMill\V(>!lllll    \.    \'riiiiolll    Ac.  Ids  M,'i>».  7 

K.Ck 

( '(mi|il;i.  'I'lic  .  .         .1  S.iw  \ .  :u'< 

C.iiili'i  V.  (iiaiiil 'riiiiiK  l{.  To     ..•.!  \.  v.  :.(!()      , 
( 'i>ii;;t'i'  \.  IIihUoii    i;i\ei'   |{.  (  11.  (1  hurl'.  :i7."i 
( 'uiiM'i'.-f  V.  Niiiwiili  Ac.  'I'riiiis. 

Co :i:i  rdiin.  n'lii     . 

CdoK  V.  (idiinliii  .  .  .J  Niiit   ,V    M.  IH 

( '(Mipcr  V.  iJci  r\-        .      .        .      .:.'l  (Jii.  .'I'Jd 
Cojic  V.  ('(irdiivii         .         .         .1    l.'awlc.  •-•(i;;     . 
Coiicliiriil  V.  New    Kiij;;liiiMl   M;i- 

liiie  Ins.  (' J  Mclc.  i;i-_' 

('(islii  l.'icii.  'I'lic  .  .  .  ;i  Siiw  V.  ."(Its 

( 'n\iii;;l(i||  \.  Wilhlll        .  .  .(in\\.||,"> 

CnWMII  V.  NelllKHII    I*.  Cii         .        .  Ids  .M;is-.   101      . 

Ciiwlcy  \.  I>iivi(!-<iii       .         .       .  i:!  Minn.!!'.' 

Cox  V.'  I'elel-dll        ....  :id  Ala.  (ids 

Cdxc  V.  Ilci-lcy  .  .  .  .  lit  I'll.  SI.  ■2\:\  . 
CiiXdii  V.  (irciii  Woieni  J{.  ('<i.."i  II.  i\  N.  jri 
('iii;;iii  V.  New  Yolk   Vc.  U.  Co.,".!   \.  V,  ill 

Ci'.ii).;-  V.  ('Iiildrcss         .         .         .  reck.  -JTd 
Criiwfonl   V.  Soiillicni   |{.   .\s-ii.  ."ij    .M:i>s.  :.'-J-J      . 
Cm.'iliv  V.  Fiicii       .        .        .       .  )•_'  Cniiii.  lid     . 


V.  (iriiiiiell 


<)li>i 


.!!   .\.   Y.   ! 

lis) 
Criiiicli   V.  (ileal  Wcslciii    |{.  (  o.  2  II.  A  \.  Id!      . 
riirlls  V.  JJdclic-icr  Ac.    |{.  Co.  |>  X.  Y.  .'(ill 
Culls  V.  Hiiiiiicnl  .         .        .  11!  \i.  ."idCi 

C/ccli  v.iiciri  Slcain  .\av.  Co      .  I,.  |{,  :i  (  '.  |*.  |  | 

;t7  I,.. I.  c.  1*.  :t 

HI  \V.  K.  Hid 

17   L.  T.  (N.  S.)  -J  1(1 


I  When  I 

lie-        ,\l  \\  hill  .-erliuiiM 
leiiled.  ;  elleil. 

IS7I     1(1. 

IS77    2d.  Kl.'i. 

is7:i  :<:<,  I7ii.  -.M."..  -Md. 

is.-i7    1 1.  Id. 

ls(i.-i  :!|.  -J Id.  -J I'.', 

isid  d. 

ls,-.7  -jd.  ;17.  !■-'."■. 

IS-.'! I  I  J.-,. 

IS  11  -j.-i.-i, 

Is7."i  -Jd,  1(1.".. 

Isid  -J."!,  jsd. 

|s7l  -iJ-*. 

I  MIS      IS.    Id,-.. 

|s:i7   (1,   ;td.    ji-j.    ii;j, 

l(l."i.  I7ii. 
is.'.j    •_'().  .■>ii,  l-.Ci. 
ISCd    -Jli!!. 
|.'-7l'    Id.  ."..'i.    i;id.   IM. 

2.". -J. 
isi.';!    I -J.  (!•_>. 
Is7.">    -J  Id. 
ls;;s   .-1,  ;ii.    III.    i.vj. 

Id.'i.  -Jdii. 

hi:.. 
is:i7  -jitd. 
is.Mi  i.'i:i. 

Is7d    (11.  -Jld,  -Jl'.'. 

|si;7    jdii. -Jis. 


Dafifreit  V.  Sliaw 

I)"  Arc  V.  I.diiildii  Ac.  I{.  Co 

I);irliii>i-  V.  Hosloii  Ac.  |{.  Co 

Diiiicli  V.  Sillinian 

David  and  Caroline.  'I'lic 

Davidson  v.  (iiahain 


, ;!  Md.  -Jdl 

.  I..   If.  II.    C.  I'. 

II   .Mien.  i>d.-.     . 

■J  l.ans.  :{(ll 

■  >  Hlalchr.  -Jdd    . 

■2  Oliid.si.  |:{|    . 


d  Hill"-.  71(1 


Davis  V.  (Jairelt 

V.  Wcsicrn  I'njon'rcl.  Cd.  I  CinTlOO 
V-  ^Villall       .         .         .       .'J.si.iiK.o;., 
Day  v.J{ldley         .         .         .         .  k;  Vi.  is 
Dcdckani  V.  Vosc         .  .        .  ;i  lU.ilclil.  11      . 

Dclcwart'    Ac.    Towlx)!,!    Co.    v. 

.     „ Starrs  dd  I'a.jSi.  lid      . 

"""•""• I   Hen!;!!.-.         . 

Dcniiiie,-  V.  (irand  'rniiik  K.  Co.  |s  X.  ||.  .|.-,r. 
Denny  v.  New  York  Ccnt.J{.  Co.  |;{  (Jrav,  ls| 
Dc    ifolliscliild     V.    Kiiyal     Mail 

Sleaiii  I'ackcl  Co.  7  Kx.  7:{  | 

2\  L.  .I.Kx.  271! 


ISlill  .-,().  Kt.'i. 

IS7I  IS7. 

Isd.'.  J  Id. 

ls7d  I  IS. 

Isd.-,  :::i.  is  I. 

Is.Mi  .-,7.  7d.  Idd.   i;!;{, 

•J  Id, 

isild  d.  II. 

Is7d  .-.7. 

1S17  iiH. 

ISI  I  I -J. 

is.^iil  ISI.2IS. 

1S71  .Ml. 

Is7d  -Jd.  isl.  '.'IS. 

ls(i!i  jiKi. 

IS.^id  Id. 

Is.Vj  Ids. -Jill . 


i 


TAIIM',  itV  CAHi;,-*  CITI'D. 


xxi 


NtllUIVi  of    C'llHOM, 


WIhti'   i')>|iiti't<>il. 


1 


1 


DiTWiii'i  V.  I.oiimci'        .         .         .21  ( 'dmii. 'Jl."! 
DiMiuii  Ac.  |{.  ('.).  V.  Adiiiiii         .  I."i  Mich.  |.">S 

?m:        •,;    •  V.  l'';iiim'i-<  Ilk-.Mt  \Vi-,  |-_"2 

Dilililc  V.  Iliuwii  .  .  .  \->  (ia.  Ji: 

v.  Mmnaii  .  .         .1  \V I-.  Kli;     . 

DiriM-ioi-iif  Mii-i.il  I!.  ( 'ii.  V.  Cnl- 

liM-711.  I,.  Cm^.  liil. 

i>iM>ii  V.  ( 'I'liiiiiiiiis  Ac.  i{.('i)     .  I  r>i>s.  i:i7 

l»ii(l-iiii  \ .  (iniiiil 'riimk  I'.  ( '((     .7  ('aiinda   I,.  .1.   (\ 

I      S. )  •Jtllt    . 
Dimlimil  V.  I  »iicciiir-Ac.  Midland 

|{.  To 1,.  i:.-JAp|>.<'a-.7!il' 

Dull'   V.  New  .Id  -cy  Sicaiii    Na\'. 

(' .'  .  .         .  I  Saiidl'.  l:itl 

Dorr  V.  New    ,lcr>c\    Slciini   Na\ . 


(' 

Down  V.  r'nnnonl 
I'.r.'vsiin  V.  Iliiiiic 

Drew  v.  I'cij  l.iiic  'I'ran-^il  ( 'o. 
Duff  V.  (ileal   U  r-icrii  H.  Co  , 
Diinii  V.  I'lraiiiicr 
l>iin-cii  V.  Wade     . 
Dii|ioiii  \'.  N'aiii'c     . 
Dw  ijiiil  \ .  |{rcw-icr 


II  N.  Y.  IS,-)      . 

H 'amp.  10 
•-•7  W.  |{.  7it:i     . 
:tJ  I.,  r.  iN.  S.)  (Iitl 
:i  Mo.  (.\p|..)  l!i.-) 
i;t  Ir.  I,.  T.  10(». 
i;l  l.a.  Aim.  I.Vj 

;Mii.  -is.-.     .     . 
M'  How.  k;-.'     . 

I  IMclx.  ,-.(1    •       . 


Ivi'_'!c  V.  Wliiic       .         .         .         .1(1  U'liart.  .•)().') 
Kailc  V.  ('adimi<      .       .         .         .  •.'  Daly.  -J:!"/ 
KaiiM'-l  \.  I'^xpic-- ( 'o  .  I  Woods.  .■)7it 

Ka-l   'I'cimcsscc   U.  Co.  v.  Moiii-; 

iioinciy        .         .         •         .         .11  (;a.  27^ 
Kn<l  'l'cimc>-cc  IJ.  Co.  V.  NcNou.'l  Ci.id.  -.'72 
Ac.  K.Co.  V.  |{o- 

!;cr< IC  llci-K.  ;  i;'. 

lOa-i    'rcimi's-('c   Ac    It.    ( 'o.    v. 

Whilllc 27  (Ja.  .■);!."> 

I'M<all  V.  Caimlcii  Ac.  I{.  Co        •.•.(»  \.  Y.  Cdl 
Kdward-  v.  'I'lic  Caliawlia    .         -11  I, a.  Aim.  221 

V.  While  l.iiic'I'raiH.Co  IOI  Ma->.  I.MI 
Kdwiii.  The      .      •         .         .         .1  S|>raixn(',  177 
KIKiii-  V.  Ito-loii  Ac.  n.  Co     .      .2:1  \.  Il.27ri 
KlUworlh  V.   Tarn 
Klli>  V.  Am.  Tel.  Co       . 
V.  'riiriicr 

Kllioll    V.    IJo-eij 

Khnore  v.  Naii^a'iick  K.  Co. 

KiiiilN .  The  V.  ( 'ariiey 

ICiiiina  .lolmsuii.   Tjie 

10ii\pirc  'I'laii-:.   ( 'o.  V.  Waiiwuila 

Oil  Co.       ii:t  I'a.  SI.  I  I 
Krii-  I{.  Co.  V.  L.ickwdod      .  .'2>i  OliioSl.  ;;.-iS 

V.  Wilcox    .     .       .:si  III.  2;!;i . 


21;  Ala.  7:!:i 
i:;  Allen.  22r, 

s  T.  n.  .-Ml 

ID.Iohn-.  I 
2lt  ( 'oiin.  r)7 
."i  Ka~.  I!  I"i 
I  Spran'iK'.  .-)27 


Ac.  Tran-.  ( 'o.  v.  Daler 
Eliiel.  Tlic        .       .         .         . 


.iSCenl.  I,.  .F.  2ii: 
.'.■)  I5cn.  I.-)l 


When  I  At  ^.1,11,  m.,.t|,„m 
cldfil.  I  '•'""'• 

IS.M  III.  nil. 

IS('.7  17.  II  I. 

|S(;,-|  (17.  1112. 

|S.'.2  I. 

IM7:(  11.  2i».  iii:>. 

IH.VS  2;is.2:»!t. 
isiis  2!».  lir>. 

1N70  27. 

IS77  I1!t. 

IS.M)  ,-..•).  2211.  2(lll. 

l.s.-il  Tm.    71.    SO.    101 

Ii:t. 
ISI  I    2(1.  !i:t. 
!M). 

1S77  ."lO,  I  lis. 

IS7S  21(1. 

is.-.s    lit.  111. 

is  10  lis.  Hill.  llis.  2!s. 

ls.->(l  2!». 

1S22  il,  1(1.  !il(.  I.-/.I. 


IS  II  7. 

1S(17  l.-is. 

1S7H  ^20.  2!i.  lit  I. 

IS71  :!7.  212. 

IS(!0  (12.  210. 

1571  2I1S.  210. 

IS.-.li  11.1(1. 

1572  .■>.■).  i:>o. 
|S.-.!l  111.  2is.  2.->:{. 

1570  IS. 

!    IS.'i!)  (1.  2:1.  111.    Id.-). 

IS.-. I  Ii.  2:10. 

I    IS.-..-.  212. 

!  isiKi  Id. 

'    ISOO  IIS. 

!  isiii  il.  .->.->.  2.-.I1. 

IS.-,,-.  210. 

i  isdi  II,  102,  21s. 

j   ISdi)  211.  1(1.-1.  2is. 

I    ISd!)  .-.1).  2  IS, 

IS7(i  r)7.  17(1.  2  lit. 

1S7(!  :is.  110.  loit.  2ii(i. 

210. 

1.S7!)  KS,  101,  lO.-.,   12,-.. 

1571  21).  Km. 


Mill  II I     111! 


'-^ 


XXII 


TAHI,!';  oi-  CASKS  CITKI). 


NlllllrH    III    CIIHCM, 


EVIIDH  V.  Kltl'lllllllH^ll 
V.  Siiiilr 

Kviiii>\iii.'  \r.  n.  r. 

K/fll  \ .  KMi;li-li 
Millir 

Kvcri'ii  V.  Siiiiilicrii  !• 

I'lvi'lli'i;;!!  V.  Syhc-li'i 

Kwiirl  \.  SIrrci 

Kxiirt'-^(  '(>.  V.  Aiiii«li 
V.  It;i<'liiii 
V.  IImi  Inn 
V.  IImiiics 
\.  ( ':ilii\\( 
V.  Cmjic'IIi 
V.  <'i- .  •U 


|{.  < 

p.   V. 

]\.  ( 

■;i(l 
:ni 
nil 

'\'\ 
Ml 


V.   |)i\ii||       , 
V.   {•'fllijlirlv 
V.  tillllll'il' 
V.    llllilK'S 
V.  Ililllis 
V.  IlilVIH'S 

V.  Ilimiiiciill 
V.  KcclVr    . 

v.  I\iil||||/l> 
V.  I,c«i'lll  . 
V.   I.n.'l. 

V,  .MiPini 
V.  Xcwliy   . 

V.  Xuck 

V.    I'flkjllS 

V.  Kciy.'iii 
V.  Kii>ii      . 
V.  SiiikN     . 
V.  Scliicr    . 
V.  Sccdiid  N'iil. 

V.  .S||ill|)|css 
V.  Sjl.'ii 

V.  Sictiiiiicrs 
V.  rninliiiii 

V.  \Vils,.|l     . 

V.  Woiiiiuk 


Willie  II'jmiiIimI. 


11.  .Ill    Mil--,   jl'i 

.2.M..VS.  I 

Yi>tiii>;.  JN  liiil.  'iHi 

.11  I'nrt.  :ill 

.        I'lMl.llll? 

'ii.       .  ii;  (ill.  ;iii:t 
.-•  Hivv.  I7S 
.  J  Itiiilcv,  l.">7 
.    0  Alii.ll.'iO 
.■.'(ill.  •J.-.l 

.■JSOliJ.i   SI.   Ill 

.:i(;(i;i.  ."i:!'.' 
.■Ji  w.tii.  •j(;i 

.   II    Alii.    IDI 

.  II  Alii.  ics 

.HI  I  .  S.  .M'.t 
.:!s  liiil.  !.•.(» 
.  !i  Hii-li.  7s 
.(■.7  III.  i;!7     . 
..".I  liiil.  IJ7 
.  IJ  III.  S!)      . 
..".I  .Mi~<.  .-.(id 
..■|!l  I  ml.  •_»(!:( 
.s  Willi.  ;t  12 
.:ttMII.  :ir.> 
.7  Hii-h.  I!i!) 
.  .'f;i  .MI-<.  s±2 

.|;((;  (ill.  (i:!."> 

I 

.'•J  l»IIV.  .'lO-J 

.l-J  ill.  l.-.s    . 

.  li!>  lli.l.  -JI      . 

.-J I  liiil.  ii);i 

.  .">.">  l';l..S|.  I  10 

..M    III.     I    III        . 

Hk.      (ilM'ii.  .Si.iiiii 
.77  I'll.  SI.  .".1(1 
.  :is  (ill.  .".l:i 
.(II  III.  |S| 
I 

.52  (ill.  I  l-J 
.SI  III.  ;i:{i) 
.:!  Ilrisk.  -IW, 


Mini 

ll.l 

Al  »  llll(  Mi'i 

llllllH 

III' 

I'llll'll 

I'llnl. 

.    IS72 

II.  Id. 

.    isi:; 

n.'i. 

.      |N(i7 

;i!i. 

.   is;ts 

:i(i.  Ki.'i. 

.     ISIS 

;i(i.  1  (;.•.. 

J  is7-.> 

•-Ml. 

.    ISII7 

.">. 

.    ls;ti 

7.  s. 

.    is7;i 

;i(i.  2-.'i. 

.    IS72 

.■.7.  •-•I!>. 

.    IS7:. 

.-.7.  i;i:i.  JIN 

.    IS(I7 

;i7. 

.    IS7I 

Jii.  ijd. 

.    Is7(t 

:tii.  ijo. 

.    IS7II 

•j(i.  ;iii.   '.i;i. 

IIMI. 

I.-P8. 

.    |S7(1 

•Jii.  ii:;. 

.1  IS7I 

;t!i.  Mi,-.. 

.    IS7J 

IJ.  IK!.  J 10. 

.    Is7:{ 

•JIIC.  J  10. 

is7:. 

nil.  IJO.  -Ji;!. 

Isciii 

:is.  101.  ijs. 

iS77 

111.  IJO. 

is77 

;i!).  Kii. 

|S(!!( 

J!». 

Isiii; 

nil. 

IS7(i 

IJ.  J.".j. 

is(i;t 

lit.  I.'.O.  JIJ. 

'  ls(;7 

1.  ;i7.  s(i.  ii.->. 
j:;:t.  Jiii. 

1 1  J. 

1  isc.d 

IJ.   7(1.  11(1. 

i:!7. 

1  is(17 

JO.  lis. 

ISC,  7 

;t',i.  IJO. 

|S(M 

;t!).  j;i(;. 

1  ls(!7 

.".!».  i:!;!.  i;is. 

J  IS. 

IS7II 

lis.  loi.  Kii. 

IS7I 

.">'.(.  J:i(i.  JiJ. 

J  IS. 

is7.". 

.V.I.  lOJ. 

isds 

J  1(1. 

IS7I 

;is.  ss.  ion. 
i;i:(,  iits. 

Illl. 

is7l 

t7.  Jill. 

ls7(i 

J  10. 

IS7() 

;j.  ij.".. 

(1; 

C 

(i; 

(1. 

(1; 

<i: 

(1: 


Fiiiroiillii  V.  Sliiciiiii 

V.   SllM'lllll 

Fiilkciiaii  V.  I''iir;r(, 


•  !'•'  Wciitl.  ;t2!»    .        .    |s;ts   .v..  k;.-..  J.VI. 
•"  llili.  J!IJ  .  ,   IM3    .V,,  J.-,|. 

.;i:.  \.  Y.  (s.  ('.)  x\-2.\  IS7J  .v..  loit. 

..  ,  ^.      .         ,.  II  How.  I'r.  HJ.-.         I 

h.iiislix.  Kn^M      .        .        .        .  II  (Jnill.dliy     .        .'  is.VI    ••l.". 
tiiriiicrs  iVc.   Hk.    v.   Cliainphiiiii 

,/'"'•""'•<'"     .•,    •       •        .       .isvt.i:(i 
Piiniu'is  \c.  Hk.   V.   (iiiiiiii.laiii 


Trans.  ( 'o 


Faniiois  Aio.   Hk.    v.  ( 'liaiiii)laii 


.  2:(  Vi.  isd 


ISK!    (11.  lOI. 

lS.'il    (11,  ss,   101.    Jiiii. 


I 


(i; 

(1; 

(1: 

(i: 

ii: 

(i 

(.1 

(; 


(i 


I 


NilllK'tiil    I  ll«l'N. 


TAui.K  or  ('\si:s  cnr.o. 


W  licii'  I  i'|iii|li'(l. 


\XIII 


I'lili'il,  I 


i-ili'il. 


TriinvC.      .... 

I'':il'llll.'llll    \  ,    (  ':lllli|r||    Ai'.   I{.  (  ' 

K;l"i'll   V.   l.'llMlK       .        . 
I'liiiiiiiii   \.  ( 'iiii'inii:ili  ai'.  K.  ( 
I'lmlkinT  \.  W  ii;;lil 
l'':i\urili'.    Till' 
l'':iv  V.  'I'll.'    \.-A   UuiM 
l-'t-rijiiMiii  V.  Ilniii 

\  .  <  ';l|l|nMII       . 
I'Mlll'l  V.   I,i\iii;;-lnii 

n.'iii  v.('iii.im«.  .V,.'.  i{.  ('(.   . 

I'illi'liruw  II  V,  <  ii'.'iinl  TriinU  U.  ( 

l''illlil\   \  .  I,i\ri|iu(i|  Slr;|lll~lii|i( 

riiiiiV.  \Vi-|iiii  |{.  (  I. 

First  \:ilinii,il  UmiiU  \ .  Sliiiw    . 

I''isli  V.  (  'li:l|illl:lli 

ri-k  V.  NfWiuii 

riiish  V.  Nru  t»i  \r;\u>  \f.  i;.  ( 

I'llllll  V.    I>llil;li|<'l|>lli:l  ,Vr.   |{.  < 

I'liiil  <Sii\  l(.  < '«'.  \ .  Wiir      . 

I''nilif-    \.  I»;illill. 

l'"iir\\  ;ir(l  \ ,  I'iiiiinl 

I'liw  Irr  v.  I  >;i\i'ii|iiirl 

Kdwlcs  V.  til.  Wcicr.    U.  t  '(>. 

I'laiiK  \.  .XiLiiif  \'.\.  <  ii. 

I'lrrdulll. 'I'llf 

I'l'I'I'IIIMII   \  .    \i'\\  (oil 

I'lTllcll  v.   |{lltT;ilii  iVc.    |{.  ('... 

l-'ricinl  \ .  WiiiiiU   . 
I'l'iiliinlil  \ .  (  '•>ii|i|;iiiil    . 


iiA<Xi'  \  •  'I'ifffll 

I  illil|f<    \  .    I'lliull    'I'lllllS.    t  '(I. 

<iail*><  \.  Il;iillii:lll 
(i.iillK'i'  V.  K.'iriicl 


.  If.  VI.  .VJ      .       . 

..v.  I'li.si. :.:»  . 
.!:il,;i.  \iiii.i;!ii  . 

'ii.  J  l»i«ll«'\.  'J  IS      . 
.  I{ir,'.   |tl7     . 

..:'  ISUs.  ."itij 
.  \  ('ill.  :'.i^ 
.IJM.I.'.t      .      . 
.V,  II.  A  .1. ;;'.'!    . 
.r>i  liMiii.  iT'.i 

.  7!   III.  l.-.s 

;...  ,-..•.  M...  M\-> 

'i>.  j;!  I,,  r.  (N.  s.)  -j.M 

.  liiJ  Mil",  -.'s;;  , 
.  (II  .\.  V.  -js;!  . 
.  J  (i;i.  ;;i'.i     .     . 


Istl  .Mtt. 

|S(17  ,V,i.   7(».  IllJ,  '212, 

•Ji;t.  J  IS. 

jsis  L|;(.  ii-.',  -jti?. 

IsriM  ,-,7.  I  12. 

is:(s  .-,.  I -J. 

IN7I  .'II.    I  Cm. 

IS.VI  'J  I,-,. 

I.S.-.7  .M"i. 

isr.  I.-..  -J.".!. 

|S7'.'  .v..  ss.  II).,. 

IM7I  (.\s.  KU.  J 10. 

ISI17  11.  nil.  .!:i'.i. 

'•.!ll(l. 

I  St  11 1  -JJ. 

1S7I  .v..  .Ml. 

IS  17  |.-..  ;;7. 7:;.s.'-,  ir>i, 
•jtiti. 

isj,-,  11. 

IS7I    i;;. 

is.-i7  ';!.■..  -Ji."!, -Jis. 

I  IS77  J2I.-.. 

i  IS7-J  ;,V,i.  -jis. 

I7s:)  j;t.  1,(1.  7.  i;!,Nr.. 

IS.VS  (i;!.  Id.-..  -Jtl;;. 

'  is.'iJ  j-_M(l.  •.•;i7. 
isdc,    i:i.  i;is.  -.MS. 

I  IS7I  I.-.:'..  111.".,  1M).-J.I7. 


.  I  l>iMii'>.  I.-. 
11.  -j;!  |.;i.    \mi.  ll.Mt 
1".  1  ||.,ii--i.  Kill'      . 

.:17  Mi'h.  Ill       . 

.11  I'hihi.  .-.l.-i 

.  I  ■r.'cm  |{.'|..  17. 

.  J I  'IVv.  ii:(l 

.  7  I'IncIi.  (I'.i'.i 

.IS  |,;i.   Aim.  -'711 

.  i,.  I!.  :»  !•.  ('.  V.ll 
•Jl  I,.   I".  (N.  S.)   IVi  1 

.  :!  K.  I>.  Siniili.  JKl    .'  ls,-ii    .v..  i-j:t. 

.1  l\r\i.>.  Ills      .         .'   istis  ',-,.-).  7!t,    l-.is.   i:<«, 
It  Aliii.  .\|i|i.  Off.  ItKlj  I     ls7.  'JIS. 

.  (1  (Ir.iii.  I  SI)       .         .]  ISIl)    I.  (1.  (!.■>,  111."). 

.J  llliiu.  17(1        .         .'   IS-.M    '2V2. 


.11  Allfii.  -Jli:) 
.  JS  Ohlii  SI.  ,IIS 

.  II  I'll.  s\.:<\:>    . 

.  1  \\\i'\.   ISS 


(i:ill:i,i;lifr  v.  (it.  WcsUtii   |{.  (  "o.  S  Ir.  ( '.  I..(\.  S.)  :W( 
(lulliii  V.  i Ion  Xf.  K.  ( 'ii.         .  •_'  ( 'fill.  I,.  .1.  -217 

I,.  i{.  II)  (,>.  n.  2I-' 

(iMiiiifll  V.  l''onl      .         .         .  .."•!,.  T.    (N.  S.)   (1(11 

(,).  H.       .         . 

(Jani-oii  V.  Mf  iii|iliis  Ins.  Co.  .It)  llnw  .  ;tl2 

(Jail  V.  .\(laiiis  K\.  ( 'o.  .  .! 

(iarsidf  v.  l'io|nifioi-s  .  .  I  'rfiin  |{f|).  ."iSl 

(iarlon  v.  Hii>.lol  Ac.  |{.  Co.  .  I   15.  A  S.  I IJ      . 

(iass  V.  New   Yolk  iVf.  I{.  Co.  .  UU  Ma-s.  .'•JO 

(iciri.  Mm.  Ills.  C(p.  V.  shfi-wood  1 1  How.  :!."(i 

(icriiiaii  V.  ( 'liifa^ii  Ac.  |{.  Co.     ..IS  Iowa.  I'J7 
(icniiaiiia   l''irf  Ins.  Co.  \.  .Mciii- 

|ilii-  ,Vf.   I{.  Co.         .         .         .72  N.  V.liO 
(ifiiiiaiiia   Ins.  C.i.   v.  'riic    l.aih  \ 

I'ikf ".17  .\iii.  l-aw  Kc|».(ill    iSilli    1. 

(iililion  V.  I'avntoii        .        .        .  '  IJurr.  221IS       .         .'   17til)    20.  Sd.  1)8 


istll  Id,  1.V2. 

|S7(1  .v;,  21(1.  '2 lit. 

ISIl)  2.  :>'.>.  121. 

ISIl  (II.  i.-.i. 

IS7I  'll7. 


1S7.")   |!m1,  ISl). 

I 

I 

ISdl    [IIS. 

is.-iti   21).  12.").  11.:.,  17ti. 
|S7!)    •j.v.i. 
I7!t2    12.-). 

isdi    US.  111). 

ISdS    212. 

IS.V2    I.".:'..  2.V.. 

1S7I     Id.  10.  212. 

1S7S   ,■,.-.. 


ii 


Swi^-''Ei,W-.  - 


'^^i3 


XXIV 


T\lll,I';  Ol'  CASIIS  CIIKI). 


NnilU'S  of    I'MHI'S, 


\\  llCI IMltlcil. 


^^   '"'"    I       \(    Hlint    SlTlillllH 

,.i',l',„|  lili'il. 


(iihlmiis  V.  U:i(lc  .  .  .  .  S  \ .  .1.  ;  I.:i\\  i  -J.'.,".  .  ISJi;  ."i|. 
(;il)liii  V.  .McMiillcii  .  .  .  I..  1.'.  J  ('.  I'.  lUli  .  ISiiS  |-_'|i 
(Jihi'oii  V.  Am.  Mnrli.  I'ix.i'o.     .  I  Mini.  il^^T 

V.  Culver  .         .         .         .17  W. ml.  :t(i,"i 
(iill  V.  M;uiiiirs|rr  Ac.  I{.  Co.      .  I,.  1.'.  s  (,>.  !?.  ISil       .     i;;:;    |:!S.  :.>!•_>. 
(;ill('ll  V.  Kllis       .         .         .         .11  III.    ,7:1  .         .         .     |s.,i,     I. 
(Jillciiwulcr   V.    MM'li-nii   Sc   l>*. 

V,o '.  IihI  :;|()  . 

(Jilniorc  V.  C.'iniiiiii       .        .         .  I  '^.  A   .M.  •„'7:i     . 
(JisbDiini  V.  Iliiisi  .         .         .1  SmIk.  -JI!) 

(ilas-i  V.  (i(.M<inilli        .        .         .  JMNi-;.  iss 
(ilciiilcjl  V.  'rimiii^dii     .        .        . :.:;  \.  \.  |ii| 
(ilcaoiii  \'.  <  iciiiiliicli  '!'i:iii<|(.  Cii.:i:J  W'i-.  s."> 
(Jodilillil  V.  Miillori        .         .         .  .'r.'  I'.:irl).  S7 
(Joji-.uii:  V.  K!>ii-,i<  Ac.  K.  Co.        ,  |-J  Wa-.  !Ii; 

(<olil    lllllllCI',  'I'lll' 
(JoMcy  V.   I'ciiii.  it.  (  'o. 
(looiiricii  V.  'I'lioiii|)-oii 


IS7I    .".."..  10:!.  ICI.  -.Mii. 
is:!7    IL',-.. 


iN.'il  -.'.Ml. 

isi:;    i;i.  |i;:,,  171;. 

I7II1  I..I. 

jsiis  1:7, 

isri  .".,"..  I  is'.  i.'io.  in:.. 

|S7.!  •.!:!,  (17.  nil. 

ISiN  .•..•).  I  10.  -j-ji). 

Is7l  II.  I  !l.  IJJ. 


M  \.  V.  :!;!1 


V.  'riloMip- :l|i  .  .11;     III.   7,", 

(Joidoii  V.  Hncliaii.iii     .         .         .  ."1  ^  c!;;'.  71 

V.  (;r:mil  .Suvcl   K.  Co,     .  Ill  It.irli.  .')|ll 


iihilclil.  A  II.  IIIIO      .'    IS;i-J    -..".I.  |(,:.. 

:!ii  I'm.  si.  J I J   .       .    is.-,s  ,-.:i.  -jis. 


V.    Iitlll'lli||«:<)l| 
V.    I.illl.'     . 

V.  \V;inl    . 


I  w.  A  s.  -jts:, 
>  s.  A  u. .'.;!:! 


(!orli;im  .Mnl'n'.  Co.  v,  l'':ir"-o         .  I.'.  Ilov.  I'l-.'.H) 


(loslinjj  \ .  I  liiiniiH 
(JoM   V.   Diii-iiioiT 
(Jininci'  \ .  .lollv 
(.'on'lil  \.   Ilill 
(iowiiy  V.  Lyon 
(.'iMic  V.  .\(l;iiii~     . 


(JiMllMlll  V.   |) 


a\is  . 


.  I  ( '.iiiiji.   I'll 
.III  M.i.^.  1:. 
.  Moll.  :II7    . 
.  ■>.  iiill.c:.',! 
.:'  I'..  Moil,  iij 
.  KMi  M:i^-..  ."'II."! 

.  !  oliio  SI.  :;(;:> 


I   !S71     II.  .Vi.    I-JI.    I  I:.'. 

I  •-'•.!;  I. 

j  isi;(i  .•,.■,.  !  >i.  I  (■>.  -^-yj, 

'  is:;:!  c-j.  h;:,. 

'  l^^ii'i  J  I.".. 

Us  I  I     I. 

;  Isjl"  :i;i. 

ISds    !7.  -jjs. 

i   1^7.1  10. 

I  MIS      IS. 

is7i'    n;.  ;i  i. 

isid  :i|.  III.  1:;;!. 

I -I-!  js.  :;7. :,:,  j-.'ii. 

IMS  !:'.  ISO. 

isiis  ;i;.  hij.  los.    1 1;;. 

i:;:i.  ..'."(7.  '-'I'O. 

IS.". I  .■,7.  70.  lii;i.  i:;;!. 

:!  I.'. 

IS77  -'17.  JIS. 


(Jniiiil 'rriml»  li.  Co.  \ .  Sl<'\cii  •  .   '"   I ' .  > ,  i i.i.". 

1;  I  iMii.  !..  ,1.  -jor 

(i'lnc- V. 'ri<'kiior         .         .        .  Ii  \.  !|.  ,"„;7 
(Jr;iy  v.  Ihirip.T     .         .         .         .1  .si,,i\.  .-.V I 

\ .  .iMck^on     ....   ,|   \  .  I '.  |i 
(iKMt  UCsici-ii  i;.  Co.  V.  IJIowcr.  JO  w.  1;.  771;     '.         [ 

V.  ( 'r Ii.  :;  \i.  a  \.  \y,', 

V.  (;lr;,i:|,.fJi  \\ .  );.  7.) 

•-'-   I..  T.  (X.  S.)   i.ij 
V.  ji.iwlviii- |s  Mii'ii.    r_'7      .         .     lvi;;i    ii;    •>•;     i-    ,■.- 
(.'TMl  NonliciiilM',,.  V.  Moivilli' 7  i;:ill\\:!v  Cj~.  <;o  .    |s,-,>    ■'-,■■■  " 

\.Shr|.lii.|(|  I  I    i;ii";.  Law  ,v    ;:,;! 


is:; I  :,:!. 

isii  11;:. 

l'-7l  .v:.  Jll.  -Jio. 

Is7_'  I  I.  HI. 

!s,"i;!  :':','!, 

1-7;!  •->... 


•1'.   .1.. 


.    Is,", 2    -jii. 
.    I  si;  I    11:1. 


0ic<.-,,"y  V.   West    Mi,nai;,|     l.'.C,,..!   II.    ,\    ('..,l|l 

I -J  W.  W  .".-..s  ! 

•  "■'or.  ,  N.  S.)  -Jlit 

n,.         ., •'•■  '■■•'•  i:\eii.cii.  i">r. 

cl^v'r""""  'V"'"''"    •       ■■'''■^^^'■■■^'       .       .    isr>:  ;!o.  1711.  '-,0. 

Ollll    \.  (...Jlelal    L'oli    .Siivw  Co.  L.   IL   )   C.   {•.  imo        .      |s,;r,     I.!;..  I,-,:;,  j;;:, 

1-'  .liii.  (  \.  s.i  7l>7 

;■■'  I..  .1..  c.  r.  :!•; 

I  I  W.  iL,s:i;! 


I 


I 


'I'MU,!",  OK  ('  \si:s  cn'Ki). 


\xv 


I 


Nliliir>  111    CMMi"^, 


(ilill    V.  <  JciMMIll     ll'oll    SciC'N    «  'ii. 


(Jiiillilimu'  \-.ll:iml>ui;;\c.rk'l  <  '< 

ll:;iUi'l|  V.  Itiwimi  iVc.  If.  Co. 
IImIi' V.  New   .Irr-fv  Slciuii   Na\ 
Co.       ..... 

Il:ill   V.   Clicni'V      . 

V.  \"illi  I'lii-lcrn  If.  (  'o. 

V.  l'i'Mli-.\  l\;nii:i  li.  (  'o. 

V.  i;;iilro;nl  Co      . 

\.  h't'lilro       ... 
Ilillilllioiiil    \ .  Mr(    hill' 
ll:iliil  V.  Hmniii'^ 
Ihinnony   \.  liiiiv.liiiiii 

V.  i!in!'haiii  . 
ll:iniiii:loii  \ .  I,\  |i'^ 

V.  McShuiic 
ll.'.ni-  V.  Noiihciii  iVc.  i;.  Co 

l':icU\\Mo(| 

K'.nid      . 

ll:ini-oll    \  .     I.oiuloli    iVc.     i;.    (  'o 

lliirl  V.   Alliii 

\  .   i;('li--rl:Mr  ,Vi'.   K.  (  d 

V.   Wc-K'ni  i;.  (  o 
ll:(i\\    \.  I'iKc 

Ihl^hiin   \ .  Adiiiii-  \\\.  (  'o     . 
Il.i-~liiii;s  \ .  l'c|i|M  I- 
I  l.lIrliiMI  V.  Till'  <   oliipKilili- c 
ll:i\vkili- \  .  ( ;ir;ii  Wi'-icin  I,'.  ( 'o 

ll;l\  s  \  .    Kr|lll('ll\ 

V.  Mill;ir    ■    . 
Ilay.'s  V.  WcIN      . 
I  It'iii'iiiMU   \ .  \\  I'sicni    iv.  (  'o 
ll:i/:ir(l  \  .  New   I'. Mi;.  Mill.  ill-.  «  'o 

lll'iMl'IIIMII    \  .   (il'Mllll  'rnilllt   K.  (    1) 

llciidrii'l- -   \  .  Till'    Mdlliiii^'  S;:ir 
I  IciKlcr-oii    \  .  Mi'\  I'll-oll 

llcl.lic.  Thr 

llclllil.'Ui    \.  |loll:w|:iv     . 

II.'I>1.\    V.   M.'MI-       .     '       . 

Ilcivliclcl  \.  Ailaiii^ 

llililcr  \ .  M((  'ari  iicy    • 

llidr  \ .  l'ro|iiii'loi- 

lli^■^■ill■-   \.  Ni'W    <>i!i:iii'-   At'.    It 

ci. 

liill  Mnlu-.  Co.  \.   I'.oioii  Ac.   i; 

Co.       ..... 

Ilill   \  .  SlIIV^i'Oli       . 

\     Sy raellsr  S  r.   |».  (  d. 

\ .  Syraciix'  A  r.  |{.  (  'o. 
liililoli  \ .  I  tililiiii   . 


\\   lllTC    l'l'|llll'll'll.  ] 

I,.  i{. ;!  c.  I'.  i7ii 
;t7  I..  .1..  c.  r.  -JO.-, 
Ii;  W.  Iv.  7'.r. 
IS  I..  T.  ,  .N.  S.  I    is."> 
I.!  \.  'i'.  l!|-J       . 

.:.<  X.  11.  :;:ii>      . 

I."i  (  on II.  ."':i'.i 

:;i;  N.  II.  -.n; 

I..  K.  !n  n.  W.  !:;;     . 

i:;  Wall.  :;r,7 
;!  M.'ir.  (  K\ .)  :,\ 

I   I'.av.  Ml  ' 

I  \M'ia;l.  -Mil      . 

I  OiiiT.  :;ii'.i 
UN.  V.'.i'.i 

■1  Noll.  iV  M.  ss 
■1  Walls,  ii;;      . 

•.!(•  N.  V.  -.IH:!      . 

II  Tamil .  "Ji'i  I 
I  \.  ll.J.V.l 
■1  I',.  A  S.  1:! 
■J  Walls.  II.". 

s  N.  N . ;;: 

r.i  Mclr.  '.l',> 

N.  C.  Tcriii  i;i'|).  S-J. 

7  Am.  I>i'c.  i;i»s 

i;  Mo-w.  •.!;;.■". 

il   I'ic'U  II 

\-2  I,a.  Ann.  7^:! 

17  Mirh.:.7 

1!   I  "a.  Sl.:!7.-;     . 
77    I 'a.  SI.  -Jits 

..;:  cal.  l:-:, 
i;i  N.  V.  !i 
s  !•.•;.  .-..".7 
K!  I  low.  !'r.   |:;il 
is  I.:'.  Ann.  :i:.;! 
I.,    i;.  :>.  S.  h.   A  l>i\ 
170 

i;.  A  I.,  ijii 

!   Wiiojw  .  IWl.")     . 

.".  r..  \  < '.  ."lOi    . 

Ilijlarl).  .'177 
:;i   Ala.  .Mil 

I  i';-n.  :i(;  . 
■-'s  I,;,.  Ami.  i:i;t 

l(i|  Ma->.  l-j;{     . 
2s  Mo.  ;!-.!.". 
s  linn.  -jIIii; 

7;'.  \.  Y.  ;;.M 
•J  i).  15.  r>iii 


".'^"'"         \l    Ulllll   sccllnll- 
,,|,|',„|  •■iI'Ml. 

!  lsi;.s    HI.") 


is7n  .-,-..  1  IS.  ]M.  \'X,. 

lsr.7  ."'. 

|s|;;  .-.,  :ii.    IiH.    17(1. 

L'll. 

ls.-,7  .".,  (1,  l;!. 

is7.">  --il  i.:Ji(!,-^:ii!.;ii;i. 

ISM)  -.'.-.s. 

IS7I  :'..i:>:k 

|si;ii  ;(.  !  I,  Id. 

I71MI  111.  I<l."i. 

IMIS  11.  :,;i.   I  II.    III. 

is.vj  .".."..  I  17. 

is.M  :....  I  17. 

I  SID  .-.. 

Is;! I  ..:;.:' 17. 

ls.-,:i  II.  Id. 

I.SIO  •-'.''..    -ill.  SU,  111. 

is:!7  I,  :>;!.  I  Hi. 

isdd  lis. 

ls;i:!  :i. .".:). 

ls,-.;i  I'l-.!. 

IS  17  ;.'.  jn.".. 

|sl7  .".II.  111.'.. 

isdii  I.  :::;;i. 

ls;!i  1 1.  Id. 

1S.-.7  1:!.  I(i."i.  I  Its. 

isds  s:,.   17.  1:17.  I  ".It. 

IS.-., 

isd!  .■..  7,  .■>'.'.  Km,  -.M't. 

IS7I  .".',1.  -.'AS. 

I  si;;!  -ji). 

I.s."..".  ±>.t). 

is:ii  I.-.;;, 

isdd  .".;.. 

Isdd  11.!. 

Is7."i  litd.  jdl. 

i  Isdii  IS  I.  J  IS. 

j.sds  -..'(I. 

is'jd  11:,. 

IS.-.,".  .".,"..  :i:!:!. 

l,s.")S  :;o.  ir,,",. 

I7'.t.i  JI. 

ls7d  1:;.  7(1,  217.  Ji'.t. 

IS7(>  ■2\:i. 

is.-.'.i  ."■o.  Id.-.,  -J IS. 

l;^7(i  .■..'..  III. 

IS7S  ,-...,  III. 

!,s|:2  !-J!t. 


X.VVI 


TAllLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


Xnmi's  of  oiises. 


Whore  reported. 


When 

tie- 
eitled. 


At  wliiit  scetions 
cited. 


liiiK-klev  V.  Xow  York  ('ciitriil 
IM' 

liiiR'klcv  V.  Xcw  York  Ceiitriil 
J{.  Co. 

il.i!i(ll('y  V.  Northern  Tniiis.  Co. 

Home  V.  Gt.  Wosteni  R.  Co. 

II  h:  111:111  V.  ^Vl"st  Jlidhiiul  R.  Co. 


V.  We*tMi(llaii(lR.Co. 

Ilolford  V.  Adams 
Ilolliiifjworlli  V.  IJrodrk'k     . 
lIoULster  v.  Nowieii 

Mood  V.  Now  York  I'Ce.  K.  <  'o.     . 
Jlooper  V.  Cliic!i,<:;o  S:r.  11.  Co. 

V.  Ratlilioiic 

V.  Wells    . 
Hopkins  V.  Westcoit 
Hubbard  v.  Hanideii  Kx.  Co.      .'ID  iJ.  1.2.">1 


•{  Thdiiiii.  it  C.  -JSl 

.-)(!  X.  Y.  Ii".*      . 
II.-.  Mass.  101     . 

;)7L.  S.  Kep.  (N.  S. 

1S!I 

.-)  B.  li  S.  17:5     . 
Kl.Iiir.  X.  S.  ()7;{ 
!;{  L.  .1.  (,).  15.  -2^ 
\-2\V.  K.  \-2:)l 

i:!  w.  K.  7:>s    . 

(!  H.  i':  S.  .-.(lU 
2  Diier.  471 
r  Ad.  c*;:  K.  to    . 
I'.i  Wend. -.ilU     . 

22  Ciiiiii.  r.02      . 

•27  Wis.  SI 
.jTaii.  I)e<'.  .-.ll)    . 
.127  Cal.  11 
.'0  Biacchr.  (!!      . 


Iliiinplir<'ys  v.  IJeed 
Hiinnewt'il  v.  'labor 
Hunt  V.  Morris 

V.  'i'lie  t/Ievelaild 
Htinter  v.  I'otrs    . 
Iliiiitiiigtoii  V.  Dinsiiiore 

Huntress.  The 

llvde  V.  Trent.  Xav.  Co. 


.'i  Wliai-t.  i;!.")      . 
.i2  Spra;;iie.  1 
.  1!  Mart.  (17i'' 
.iii  Mi'i.eaii.  70     . 
.1  Camp.  211:! 
.1;  'i'li(iiiii>.  I'c  C.  l!t.") 
li  lliili.OO 
.Daveis.  S2 
.  .")  'reriu  I!ep.  :5.S1J 


Illinois  Cent.  J{.  Co.  v.  Adams    .12  111.  171  . 

V.  Copelaiid'21  lll.;!;!2  . 

V.  Cowles    .::i2  111.  110  . 
V.  Franlvcn- 

ber^-       .':.(  lll.SS.  . 

V.  Hall         .':>S  111.  lO!)  . 
V.  .Idlinson  .'SI  III.  ;<S|)  . 
v.McClellan.M  ill.  .'.s    . 
V.  Morrison  J 'J  111.  I;i0  . 
V.  R.^ad       .;'7  III.  hi  . 
V.  Sniv>er   .'\is  \U.:\:,i  . 
Indiana  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mii'iidv    .21  Ind.  IS  . 
Indianapolisiie.  R.  Co.  V.  Allt'ii  .  :n  Ind.  :;i)I 
V.  lleav<'r  11  Inil.   I!):{ 
V.  lox     .20  Ind.  aoo 
V.l{emiiiv  i:i  Ind.  .MS 
V.    .Strain  SI  III..-iO|  . 
Inhabitants  V.  Ilall        .         .        .  (II  .Me.  .■)17 
lii^i'alls  V.  liroiikes  .         .         !i:d.  Sel.  Cms.  101 

Invincible.  The  .  .  .  .!l  l.i.wcll. -JJ,-.  . 
Irish  V.  .Milwaukee  i'i:e.  R.  Co.  .  10  Minn.  :!70  . 
Isaliella.  The  .         .         .         .'s  B,ii.  piO 

1/ett  V.  .Mountain  .        .         ,        .  |  Kn^i.  ;)7l 


1.S74  i."..  ii:i.  2;i(;.  244. 

1874 


55.  Ii:i.  2H0.  244. 
10.  40.    102.   lOS, 
14.->.  211. 


1S77 
1802 


ISO.-) 


148. 
!I0. 


:)(>. 


i  <>:) 

.V).  s;). 

200. 

I8;i7 

ft. 

ISliS 

i,:{.2o. 

2.').  .->;{.  :>:, 

Oil.  101.  i;i.'.. 

ls.-.;( 

2:'.:>.  210. 

1S70 

(;7.  I2.'>. 

is.-.s 

21).  2 18. 

ISOl 

:!2,  l.-)0. 

2;;;{.  200 

IsOS 

20,  8S. 

I.->8.  2.-.7. 

1S72 

1:5.  (;o. 

21s. 

1S4I 

.■)0.  10.-,, 

2.-.I. 

IS.-,) 

20.  1 84. 

2  IS. 

ISl!) 

i:t. 

IS.Vi 

20.  21.'). 

21s. 

Is7.-. 

102. 

ISIO 

I7:i:! 

22. 

.r2.->.  1 

2.-). 

1807 

:is.  128, 

200. 

ISOO 

240. 

lso:> 

240. 

1S7() 

;i8.  IV7. 
210. 

2:iO.  2:{8, 

1871 

2;i. 

1801 

210, 

1S70 

;is.  104. 

IS,-.7 

:;s.  12s. 

2.-..-.. 

ISO.-, 

;is.  2i.->. 

21s. 

18(;.-, 

:;8.  ii',-,. 

lso;i 

:i'.i.  12s:. 

l.-,0.  215. 

lso;t 

:io.  12s. 

i;i7,  18.5. 

is7:i 

;;o.  217. 

Is'OS 

.i'.i.  107. 

|s,-,;» 

M.  li:i. 

12s.  2.54. 

1870  li^.  2;!7. 

Is7:i  J2I0. 

1SI5  111. 

ISOS  i.);).  1S4.  21s, 

Is72  :240. 

|s75  120.  105,  105. 

180;i  I25.  04. 


150. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


XXVll 


Nmiiesof  casi'M. 


AV'licrc  reported. 


I  When      ^t  ,yi,„f  seetions 
I  cided.  '  '•"'=''• 


Jacobus  V.  St.  Piiiil  &c.  n.  Co. 


20  Miim.  12.")      . 
1  (Vnt.  h..l.l2.) 


.Icffersonvillc  i^ic.  H.  Co.  v.  Wor- 

laiiil     .....         .:.".()  !ii(l.  :VM 

Jciiiiisoii  V.  < 'iiiikIcii   i^c.    I{.  ( '().  I  Am.  L.  !{('<;•.  2l{r) 
JoliiisoM  V.  I-'iiar    .         .         .         .1  Veiii'.  IS 

V.  New  York  ('('lit.  K.  Co,;!:;  N.Y.iilO       . 
V.  New  York  Cent.  l{.<'o:iI  Harl).  I'.Hi 
\ .  IJeilsoii  .  .  .'4  .Moore.  '-10 

I  15.  \  n.  151 

.loncs  V.  I'itelier    .         .         .         .  :i  St.  i*>:  I',  ll!.")    . 


V.  Sllll- 

V.  \'ooiliee> 

V.Walker     . 
.fiid-oii  V.  (ireal  Western  15.  Ci. 
.Iiiiiiata  I'atoii,  'I'lie 


Ivalliiiaii  V.  r.  S.  I'^x.  <  'o. 
Kansas  iV.*'.  1{.  Co.   \.  Nieliols 

I'ac.  I{.  Co.  V.  I{e\  Holds 
!sa\'  V.  Wheeler 


Keeiie  v.  'I'lie  Wlii-ller 

Keenev  v.  (iraiid  'rrniik  I*.  ( 'o. 

Keitli  V.  Amende  . 

Kelliam  \.  'I'lie  Ken-^iiiiitoii  . 

Ki'iiiher  V.  Soiitlieni  Kx.  <  'o. 

Keinlde  \ .  I, 111! 

Kendall  \ .  liondon  R.  ( 'o.     . 

Kelirji;-  V.   lOirji'le-ton 

Kent  V.  Midland  |{.  Co. 
Keokuk, The 
Ken-  V.  The  Norman 
V.  Willan 


Ketehnm  \.  Am.  I'ls.  ( 'o. 
Kiinliall  v.  Uiillaiid  i<:e.  K.  Co. 
Kin;;'  \.  Sliephe.d 

V.  'Voodhride-e     . 
Kiniie.N'  V.  ( 'eiilral  l{.  ( 'o. 
V.  Central  |{.  Co. 
Kirhy  v.  Adams  V.\.  ( 'o. 

Kirkland  v.  Uinsmore  . 
V.  Dinsmore  . 
Kirk  V.  l'"olsoin 
Klanlicr  v.  Am.  Kx.  <  'o. 
Kiiell  V.  r.  S.  ^e.  Steaiiisliip  ( 

Knowles  V.  I>al)i!ev 
Kiiowltoii  V.  I'j'ie  i\k;e.  iJ.  ( 'o. 


!i  I'ort.  -Jlid 
111  Ohio.  1  l.'i 
.".  Veru-.  127 
C  Alli'ii.  IS.-) 
I  Hi-s.  1.-)  . 


.  ;'.  Ka<.  2(l.-> 
.  !i  Ka^.  2:ir) 
.IS  Kas.  (12;i 

.':ui  I,.  .I.e.  1'.  isii 
:l,.  If.  2  c.  1'.  ;{(i2 

ll.-)  W.   K.  -I!).-) 

Ik;  l.  t.  (N.  s.)  ci; 

:2  Sawv.  :ilS 
.-.!•  Barb.  KM 
!|  Hu-li.  I.M 
21  i.a.  .\nii.  100 
'•>•>  I.a.  Ann.  \:>S 
:\  MeI.ean.  272   . 

I.,  u.  7  Kx.  :{7:{ 

Alevn.  '.y.\  . 

,!,.  |{.  I0(,».  H.  1 

,1  IJi-.  .V2-J 

1   Xewb.  .■)2.-) 

Holt.  (Ii:>    . 

i(i  M.  A   S.  l.-)0 

,2  Si  ark.  ."i:; 
.  .■)2  Mo.  ;!1)0 
.'2(;Vt.2l7 
.l;tStorv.:illi 


.:m  vt.  :.(;.■> . 
.'■.w  \.  .1.  (Kaw)  r)i;! 
.;i2  \.  J.  (Law)  ■!07 
.2  Mo.  (Ajip.)  ltd!) 

i:;  Cent.  K.  .1.  -Hi.'i 

.'l  Tliomp.  .'i;  C.  :U)4 
.(12  \.  Y.  171       . 
.  2:!  I.n.  Ann.  .^si 
.  21  Wis.  21 
'o.  ;i;i  N.  V.   (Siipr.  ct. 
12.! 
.  10.-.  Mass.  i;i7     . 

.  10  oiiio  St.  2(;o 


187:!    4S.  70.  218. 


187.")  :io.  2.-) I. 

is.-)(;  210. 

is:!:i  (;2.  Kir). 

ISi;.-)  11..-)-).  142. 

1N.-.7  n.  .-).->.  142. 

I  SKI  k;.-.. 

is:!:i  ;!(!,  icm. 

is;ii)  21. 

IS  10  i..-,7. 

1S27  (12.  24S. 

isi;:;  4(i.ss.'.is.  i:v,!.  244 

1S.-.2  2!l.  It;.-).  248. 


.  iSd,-)  II.  SS.  248. 

.  1S72  1(1.11. 

.  IS71  14.  Id,  41.24S. 

.  18(17  l(l.->. 


IS7:!  14!). 

IS70  :<:>.  I ;!.-).  148. 

isdd  12.  ISO. 

IS72  4:i.  248. 

1S70  i:'-.  !!.-).  112. 

184:$  ii:i. 

1872  Id. 

20.  8(;. 

1S74  2;id.  2:{7. 

Isdd  2!l.  Id.-).  248. 

is.-).-)  211.  24.-). 

1S17  2(1.  111).  100.  i;?:i. 


1S7:!  .-.0.  248. 

18.-)  I  k;,  (;4. 101. 

181)  7.8.2'.).!.-.:;. 

2  IS.  2.-)(;. 

isdi  (;4.  ik;. 

ISO!)  ,-)4.  2111. 

18d8  .-.4.  70.  210. 

1870  r.o.  i:{:{.  212. 


Kj-), 


1874 

.-).-). 

102. 

is;.-, 

.-..-), 

102. 

11:;. 

1871 

24S 

, 

I8(;(i 

4. 

).  22 

IS7I 

.-..-). 

1  ;!.■). 

11/7. 

1870 

4(1. 

ISdl) 


ill.  21s. 


^T7pm^^ms!ms^^^ms«-': 


XXVIII 


TAULE  OK  CASES  CITED. 


XllUlPS  of  PIISPS, 


Wlii'iT  rpportod. 


WliPii  I  At  wlmtscHioiis 


I'illCll. 


cited. 


!l 


Kyle  V.  Laurons  11.  Ci>. 


louicii.  (s. 'A)  :iS2  .  isr.!)  212 


L:u'l<;i\vaiiii:iAi'.  It.  t'o.  v.Clu'iic- 

with .VJr'a.St.:?S2 

Liulv  I'ikc.  The    ....  •-'•  nis>.  1  H 
L:iiiii,^v.  ('(.hlor    .        •        •        • '^  !'"•  ^^t-  '''•' 
Laki^  V.  Ilru-il         .        •        •        .  ;iS  Conn.  .■>:!(! 
Lake  SIkhc  iS:c.  R.  (.'i>.  v.  (Jrccii- 

wnod 7SI  l>a.  Sr.:i7;i 

V.  r.'ikinsj:.  Mi.'h.  ;!2!l 
Lamb  v.  Caniilcn  itc.  li.  Co.        .  W  N-  V.  271 


V.  Camden  &c.  T?.  Co. 

V.  Cannlen  Ac.  K.  Co. 

V.  Paikman 
f/imont  V.  \a<!ivilU'  i^c.  H.  (/o. 
Landes  v.  I'aeii'n'  l{.  Co. 
T.audslierji;  v.  Dinsmore 
l.aufrhcr  v.  Painter 
Laurie  v.  honula-; 
Laveroiii  v.  I)iin\' 


Lawrence  v.   New  York  i<:e.   li. 
Co 

V.  MeCJrejjof 

V.  Mintiirn    . 
Leary  v.  I'nited  States 
Leavenworth  i<.('.  U.  Co.  v.  Maris 
Lel)ean  v.  (ien"l.  Sleam  \av.  Co. 
Lee  V.  Marsh         .        .        .        . 

Lee  V.  IJaleioli  .<;e.  I{.  Co. 

Leeson  V.  Holt       .        .        .        . 

Leonard  v.  ilendriekson 

Le  Sane  v.  (ireat  Weslern  ]{.  Co 

Lenw  V.  Duduenn 

Leverinu;  v.  I'nion  'I'rans  ite  Co 

Levi  V.  Lynn  ivc  Horse  11.  Co 

V.  Waterlioiise 
LexinijIoM.  Tlie     . 
Levois  V.  (iale 

Li'vy  V.  Pontcliartrain  I{.  Co 
V.  Soiitliern  l-^x.  Co     . 
Li'wis  V.  Ludwick  . 

V.  'I'lie  Success    . 

V.  (ireat  \Vesiern  ]{.  Co 

V.  Great  Western  it.  Co 
T>iniljur;,a'r  v.  ^Ve^tcotl 
Little  V.  Boston  t'\:c  R  Co     . 

V.  Semple  . 
Live  Yankee.  'I'lie. 
Liver  Alkali  Co  v.  .htjinson. 


2I)alv.  IM 
IDaly.  IM! 
I  Sprau'ue.  'M'.\  . 
!l  llcisk.  .")S 
.■)(!  Mo.  ;{!i; 

I  l):dv.  lit" 

.".  15.  \  C.  .■)!7     . 
1:.  M.  c>c  W.  710 
S    Kx.    1(11! 
1(1  .Fur.    1021 

22  L.. I.  ::x.:! 

;!lt  ( 'onn.  It;! 

Wri-ht.  l!)!!  . 

17  llow.   100  . 

II  Wall.  007  . 
If)  Kas.  :!:!;{ 

L.  I{.  SC.  I'.  SS 
2S  How.  Pr.  27.") 
1:;  Harl).  102 
72N.C.  2;!i;       . 

1  StMlk.  iMi 

IS  Pa.  St.  40      . 

I  !)alv.  :!0(;. 

I.,  li.':!  c.  P.  17 
12  Mo.  SS 

II  Allen.  liOO     . 

I  Price.  Kx.  2S0. 
OHow.  :ill 
17  La  Ann.  :!02. 
21)  La  Ann.  177. 
IS.  c.  :i:!l. 
1;  Coldw.  liOS     . 
IS  La  Ann.  I     . 
"1  H.  iV;  X.  SI  17    . 

L.  n. :{ (}.  15.  I).  10 

10  Harl..  2s:{       . 

oi;  Mr.  2:{!i 

s  Mo.  ii!)     . 
I  Di'adv.  120     . 
20  W.   P.  (•>;!;! 
L.  li.  7  Kx.  2117 


ISOii    -vtO. 

IStlO    2!).  lll.">.  2tS. 

ISJS    .V.I.  Kill. 

1571  ;il.  102, 

1S7.")  jjlO. 

1572  M.  1(1.  !()!». 

1S71  ."),•).  ilili.  170.  2;!(1. 
I     240.    21:!.    211. 
24S. 

iSllil  ,-,.-..  170.  21:;. 

ls7:i  .v.. 

ls,-)7  20.  21s. 

1571  I. 

1572  :>i). 
|s7:i  .').*>.  2.")2. 
IS2I1  212. 

I  SKI    111.".. 

1S,".2  0.  1(1,".. 


.'  isiiii  ;5|.   SS.    !)(i.   102. 

j  11(1. 1,")-).  24s. 

.1  is:t:5  ill. -.7. 102. 

.'  is.-)i  2;i.  211.  1(1.".. 

.  1S71  2il.  171. 

.  1S7(;  41. 

.  IS72  207. 

.  ISIli  1(1.  .").".. 


1S7.-. 

.">(!. 

ISKl 

2.">.  211.  .S."..  OS 

is.-.l 

1. 

ISIIH 

11. 

ls(i7 

202. 

|s(;7- 

."lO.  I.-.O. 

isd.-, 

1. 

isl,-, 

'.111. 

1S4S 

2.'.H. 

ISO.") 

i:i.  02. 

IS71 

i;i.  1711. 

1S72 

HI.  2:i2.  21:'.. 

Isd'.i 

:>.  1:!. 

isiir. 

415.  111.-.. 

ISOd 

lis. 

1S77 

IIS. 

|S(17 

.-.."..  107. 

1S7(1 

11.  02.  lid. 

isi:{ 

..O.   I'.IS. 

ISIIS 

211.  247. 

1S72 

151. 

TABLE  OF  CASE.S  CITED. 


XXIX 


N'aiiics  of  cases. 


Wlicn     ri!i)(>il('(l. 


Liver  Alkali  Co.  v.  Johnson         .  L,  |{.  !)  Ex.  :i:!S. 
I^lovd  \ .  CJcncral  Iron  Screw  <.'o. !!  II.  A-  C  2S1    . 

JO.Iiir.  (\.  S.)  (101 
:i:!  !,..(.  K\.  ■>(','.) 
\-2  W.  II.  ,SSJ 
1(1  i..  T.  (X.S.)  .-)S(i 
I.lovd  V.  Wiilerfonl  Ac  K.  Co       .  \T>  Ir.  ( '.    ]..  (X.    S.) 

H7    . 
Lock  Co.  V.  Kailroad    .        .        .  IS  N.  II.  :i:is      . 
Lonilon  A   Northwestern  ]l.  Co. 

V.   Dinihani        .        .        .        .  is  C.  15.  >vj(; 
I,on<^  V.  New  York  ('ent.  K.  (..'<•  .  ">(l  N.  Y.  "(! 
I.ooniis  V.  I'ear>on         .         .         .  Il.irp.  170  . 
I.unl  V.  Miilland   U.  Co         .         .  I..  K.  'J  C.  1'.  ::;!:) 
I.onisville  \c.  J{.  Co.  V.   lirown- 

lee '.I  Cent.  L.  .1.  1(11 

V.  Iled^-er    .  '.I  Hiisji.  (;i."> 
V.  <'ani|.ljell  ;  Il<'i'ix.  •_'.".;5       . 
I.ov  rin<:  V.  Muck  Mt.  Coal  Co     .M  Ta.  SI.  :i!)l    . 
I.owe  V.  Hoolh       .         .         .         .  i;{  Price.  :f:il»      . 
Lowell   Wire   l''ence  <  o.   v.  Sar- 

j;eni S  Allen,  isi) 

I,nce-co  Oil  Co.  V.  I'enn.  I!.  Co    . 'J  I'i'!-.  177 
Lnpe  V.  .Ml antic  iVc  J{.  Co.         .  :i  Mo.  (App.j  77 
Lvon  V.  MelU         .         .         .         .  ,")  Last.  US. 
Lviio  V.  Ncwholil  .        .        .        .!»  Kxch.:i(i-i 


Macklin  v.    New  .Jersev    Steam-  7    Aldi.    I'r.   (N.    S.) 


Iioal  (  o. 

V.  Waterlionse 

Macauie\  V.  I''urness  J{.  (.'o 

.Madan  v.  Sherard. 
V.  Slierard. 


Magfiie  llaiinnond.  The 


Mairhee  v.  Camden  Ac.  |{.  Co 


Ma,i;iun    v.  Dinsinore    . 

V.  Diusniorc    . 

V.  I  )in>niore     . 

V.  I)in>niore    . 

V.  Din-niorc    . 

\ .  I  )ln-inore    . 
Mahon  v.  'I'lie  ( )live   Hrancii 
Malone  v.  Kosion  Ac.  J{.  Co 
Malpas  V.  London  Ac.  K.  Co 
.Manhattan    Oil    Co.    v.    Camdei 

Ac.  |{.  Co. 
Manliatian  (HI  Co.  v.  < 'amden  A 

K.  « 


■2   M.A  1'.  HI!) 

■2\  W.  I{.    1  10  . 

■27  L.  T.  N.S.  IS.-) 

10. 1.  A  s.  :\:>:)  . 

7:5  N.  v.  liliO  . 
!•  Wall,  i:!.-) 

ir.  N.  V.  .Ml  . 


^V'"  '  At  wliat  sections 
cidcd.  1    ^21^^ 

1S74   inL 

ISI.-)    1  ().-). 


is(;2  nil. 

isc.ii  2:!s.  -J  10. 

is.-c,  •_>7. 

1S7-J  .'..-).  n;?.  110. 

IS-J4  !». 

1.-(17  lis.  \2'.). 

IS7!I  \2. 

is7;i  i(i.  i-j.  1:17.  liiii. 

1S7:2  -'WT.  210. 

lsi!7  I. 

1S2I  11.  •-'.-). 

ISO  I  i.2;!;i. 

is7i;  .-.().  -Jis, 

IXII  !i.  2r)0. 

IS.VI  24.-). 


IStiN  ."..-).  Hi),  121. 

1S2S  !)2.  i:};i.  2;}2. 

1S72  2.-). 

1S77  .->•-).  107. 

1S7S  .-),-).  107. 


ISti',) 


1: 


.-)H  N.  Y.  (;r)2     . 

70  N.  Y.  410      . 

(12  N.  Y.  :!.■) 

:!.!.  A  s.  (X.  V.)  1S2   IS7;;  .'):>. 

C.  .F.  A  S.  (N.  Y.)  2S4    I'<7I    r,:,.  24S. 


1S71    II.  ■").   102,  i;ii). 

i.-|7.    171.    211. 
I      2:i(j.24;5.  214. 

1S7:{  .-).-). 
1S77  ;-).-). 
1S7.-)    20.  .-),-).  S8. 


iO  X.  Y.  1(!S 
IS  La.  Ann.  lo7 
12  Crav.  ;tss  . 
L.  K'.  i  C.  V.  :VM', 

IM  X.  Y.  l'.)7      . 

.')  Alil).  (X.  S.  2S1I 


1S74  150. 

istiti  4:1.  k;.-). 

US.-)!)  40.  iH).  lOli. 

ISlid  II. J. 

isr;!  .-,-).  24;i. 

I  SOS  :>'). 


^JfiSfVivr. 


^fmrngm 


XXX 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


Xiinies  of  cases. 


WlicTo  reported. 


When  I  ^Yt  what  sections 
elded.  '•"«<!• 


^[niiii  V.  Ijiri'lianl. 
.Mural lion.  Tlic 
3Iiirsli  V.  J{|\  111      . 

V.  BlVtlie    . 

V.  lloriii'    . 
Miirtiii  V.  American  Ex.  Co. 

V.  (Jl.  Indian  |{.  ( 'o  . 
^Maryland  Ins.  t'o.  v.  l.e  Hoy 
MaviiiL'  V.  Todd    . 


.  I  N.  iV:  Me.  17 

.  1  .Me.  Cord.  iiC.O 

.  .•)  n.  \-  ( '.  ;]•>■>  . 

.  Ill  \Vi~.  ;!;!() 

.  I,,  i;.  ;i  Kk.  !i   . 

.  7  <  'ranch.  l'(I 
.  I  Stark.  72 

4  ('.■inip.  L''.'."t 
.  I  Ohio.  :i:tl 
.  1  Ncwl).  Km      . 
.;!  H.  iV:  ('.  (;oi     . 
1  ('.  i^-  1'.  ,■).-«( I 
.McAndri'w  v.  Electric  Tel.  Co     .  17  ('.  1$.  ;i . 
.McArllinrv.  .Sears         .         .         . -21  Wend.  l!l(»     . 


I  I 

1(1  Vt.  ;L'<!  .         .!  1S()7  CI.  101. 

lit  I..  T.  (.\.  s.)  !{];!.  ->.■)(;. 

.  ISlS  (11.  Km. 

.  \S->\  (II.  Km. 

.  isl'o  !»;;. 

.  IMm  (i7.  •JiiO,  211. 

.  IN(!7  1S7. 

.  ISI2  li. 

.  ISI,-)  2.->.2(J.,s.-,,i;5l.2-JI 


^lay  V.  H.alicock  . 
^lay  {^neen.  Tlie  . 
^lavliew  V.  Kanies 


:McCaIl  V.  IJrock  .  .  .  . .")  Slrohh.  1 1!»  . 
.McC'ancc  v.  London  itc.  U.  Vo.  .  7  11.  iV  X.  177  . 
.Mct'ann  v.  lialiiniore  tVc.  H.  ( 'o.  -JO  Md.  -W. 
.McL'Iaryv.  Sioux  City  iV:c.H.  To  .  li  Xeh.  II  . 
.McClenajjlian  V.  Bnick  •  .  .">  I'icli.  17  . 
JfcClnre  V.  Cox  .  .  .  .  ;{l' .Ma.  (il7 
V.  riiila.  |{.  Co.  .  .lit  Md.  .-,;{!) 
McCoy  V.  Keoknk  iiic.  I{.  Co.       .  14  Iowa.  124 

V.  Krie  ».<:c.  Transp.  Co.    .  42  Md.  4!>S 
McDaiilel  v.  ( 'lilca,i;o  iV:c.  J{.  Co.  .  24  Iowa.  412 
McOre<r(n' V.  Kiliro're     .         .         .  (!  ()liio.;i.")S 
.McIIeniy  V.  IJaiiroad  Co.     .         .4Ilarr.  44S 
.Mclvinney  v.  Xeil  .         .         .  1  McLean.  .tIO  . 

.Mc.Manns  v.   Lancashire   i^cc.    I{. 

Co •llLSi  X.  (i!i;!    . 

Mc.Manns  v.  Lancashire  oie.   J{. 

Co 4  II.,<:  X.:i2S    . 

•">  .Kir.  X.  S.  (m1 

;t;i  L.  T.  2.-.!) 

2S  L.  .1.  Kxch. 
:!.■>;!   Kx.  Ch. 
JlcMasters    v.    rennsvlvania    |{. 


Co. 


.  lii)  I'a.  SI.  ;;7I 


.Alc.Millaii  V.  :\Iielii«;aii  iSjc.  J{.  Co.  l(i  Mich.  7 


Jleniphis  t'ic.  7{.  Co.  V.  .[ones      .  2  Head.  .■,17 

,,     '^-  <'"•  \-  Iloiloway       .  4  L.  iV  Lo.  I{.  42.") 
Men/ell  V.  L'aihvay  Co.         .         .  j  Dili,,,,..-,:!! 
Jlercantilc  Mnt.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chase  ]  |;.  |).  Sniilh    lI." 

Ins.  Co.  V.  Calebs       .  2(1  X.  V.  17:5      . 
.Merchants  Dispatch  Co.  v.  Coin- 

,,       ,  I'orih. ;;  Col.  ■2Xi)  . 

Merchants  Dispnich   Trans.    (',,. 

V.  JJ.dles  .        .         .         .M)Iil.  |7;{.         . 

.M<'r(hants  l)is)>atch  Trans.  Co.  v 

,,^'""''''      ,  :        •        •        •        .ssin.  l;|ii  .        . 
-Merchants  Dispatch  'JVans.  ( 'o.  v. 

'I'I'filliar     ....  m;  III   -1 

Merrick  v.  Uebster        .         .  'i  Mi,.i 

.Merrill  V.  Arev      .        .        . 


1.  :]i<s 
'■>  \Varc.  21. ■) 


.    1S2II    .■.7.  102. 
.    lS.-)4    2!».  s.s. 
.    1S2.J  ;22(). 

.     1NV>     1. 

170. 

.  \s:,\)  (1. 

.  1m:i    IIS. 

.  ls(i;i    1,-,. 

.  is7:i    10.  14.-.. 

.  is.-.l    .-.. 

.  is.vs    ;|(l.  Km. 

.  1S71    4.").  2;io. 

.'  1S7(!    10.  40. 

.  1S7.-I     l.'i.  102. 

.1  ISOS    40.211. 

.:  is.'ti   ,-.7.  IDS. 

.  ISIO    7. 

.i  is;«i  24.-). 

i      ' 

.1  1N.-)S    10. 

.'  IS.V.l    Ki.  27.  111). 


1S71     12.-.. 

.':  l.S(i7  47.  SS.   101.   KI2. 

,  I     12.-..    212.    2I.{. 

i     210.  2.->7. 

.  l.^.-.ii  02.  l.-.o. 

.  IS77  121. 

.  1^70  21).  k;:;. 

.  IN.'iO  .•).■).  21  J. 

.  L^")l'  .v..  121.  2.-..-.. 

.  I>i77  ;{;!.  70.  210. 

.  IN7.-.  lis.  02.  244. 

.  1S7N  !0:!. 

.  1S77  :is. 

.  1S.-.4  47.  i;!!l. 

.  ISM  20.  Km.  17(;. 


TAHLE  OF  (ASKS  CITED. 


XXXI 


Nam('><  (if  (uses. 


Wlirrc    icpoi'tcd. 


^lorritt  V.  Vm-\v    . 
V.  Iv.rlc     . 
Mcr-lidii  \ .  Ilultciisiick 
Mcvcr  V.  Ilaiiulcn's  Kx.  Co, 
V.  I'.'.-k 


r.i  BiM-l).  :is 
•J!)  \.  Y.  11.-) 
•.>:(\.  .1.  (Law 
•J4  lli)\\.  I'r.  -I'M) 
■2S  \.  Y.  .■'.Ml 


."Miclii^aiu^tc.Il.C'o.  v..M('l)iiu()ii<;l.l--'I  .Midi.  HI.-. 
V.  Hale  .(!  .Micli.-Ji;! 


V.  Ilt'atoii 


!;i7  hid.  IIS 


V.  Ward  .i:i  Mi.h.  .-.:is 

Miletus.  Tlic .-.  IJIatchf.  :!;?.-. 

Miller  V.  .Sii-am  Xav.  Co.      .        .'in  \.  Y.  i;!l 
Milliiiiore  v.  Cliieajio  i^c.  H.  Co.':!?  \Vi<.  I'.iil 
Missouri  i^e.  H.  Co.  v.  Caldwell  .|S  Kas.  -.Ml 
.■Milwaukee  A;e.  I{.  Co.  v.  Sinltli  .'71  111.  \'.>7  . 
V.  Smitli  .Sim.  -IM  . 
Miiw.Mllkee  j'.elle.  'I'l;.'  .  .  .'2  I'.is^.  I!l7 

Mi.-soiiii.   I'lie  V.  Weill.  .         .  1»  .M(..  !!i:!  . 

Miteliell  V.  i,aiiea>liire.'ve.  ]{.  Co.  L.  IJ.  ilH;.  H. 

V.  I'liiled  Slates  \]s.  Co. Jill  Iowa.  I'l  I 
.Mobile  \e.  U.  Co.  V.  Franks         .^1  Miss.-I'.ll 
V.  lldikin        .III  .Ma.    tsi; 
V.  .larlH,  .11  Ala.  i;|| 

V.  Weiiiei         .  lilMiss.  ;l>.-. 
.s  Wall.  !.•.;{ 
.  ■_'  Hiss.  .M).-, 
.  -.'l  Wall.  -IM). 
.Miiiitjioiiieiy  \e.   If.  Co.  v.    Kd- 

luoiids  ' II    .Ma.  (;(!7 

.Mmil"iiiiiei\- iVe.  I'.  Co.  v.  .Moore. ')l  Ala.  li'.M 


M'lliaw  k.  'i'lie 
Mollie  Mohjer.  The 


.Moore  V.   i;\aiis     . 

V.  Mieli.  Cent.  l{.Co. 

\ .  Am.  'I'raiis.(  d. 
.>'or;;aii  v.  Dil.lile 
Moriiirty  \.  Ilarden's  \]\.     . 
.Moi'iison  V.  Davis 
Morse  V.  Slue 

V.  Slue 
.Aloses  V.  IJostou  iV.e.  i{.  Co. 


.jl4  Karl..  .".21 

. ;!  Midi,  -j;; 

.  :il  How.  I 

•J!(  '\\'\.  107 
.  1  Dalv.  -I-IT 
.20  I'a'.  S!.  171 
.  Veulris.  1!M» 
Veniiis.  -JoS 
.  Jl  .N.  il.  71 


v.  Norris  .  .  .  .IX.  Il.liOl 
.Mo-lier  V.  Souilieni  Mx.  Co.  .l{S(;a.l>7  . 
Muddle  V.  Siride   .  .  .  .  '.)  C.  iV  1'.  :iSO 

.Midler  V.  (ill.  \e.  U.  Co.     .         . -J  Ciii. '-'SO  . 
Muliinan  v.  111.  Cent.  K.  Co.         .:'.;;  Iowa.  ISO 
.Miinii  \ .  ISaker       .         .         .         .  2  Stark.  J.V. 
.Miiseliaiuii  V.    I.aueasier  \e.   \l. 

Co S  M.  0.  \V.   IJl 

Mvai!  V.  IJostoii  i-vie.  It.  Co.  .         .  lit  .\.  II.  122 
.Mviiaiil  V.  Svraeuse  ^e.  1{.  C(..    .  11!  .Mli.  L.  .1.  i;5l 

7  lliui.  ;(!)!! 
Syracuse  I've.  |{.  Co.    .  7i  N.  Y.  iSO 
.Mvitoii  V.  M'idl.Tiid   K.  Co     .         .1  II.  iV  X.  (Jl.-.    . 


!72 


tii 


WlKMl 
.Ilk 

At  wlial  .sections 

iie- 
<'i(li'(l. 

citeil. 

ls.-,» 

7. 

1S(it 

7. 

is.-.o 

(i.  7. 

lS(i2 

.-..-..  22;!.  22.-). 

IStil 

->.-..  112.  IKi,  1711. 

l;il). 

1S70 

11.  1(1. 

IS.-)!) 

IC.  17.70.08.1(1.-). 

10!».  24-1. 

1S71 

:;'.!.  7:?  12S.  i;;;i. 

I7(J. 

IS.-.;? 

47. 

isiu; 

2:1.  k;.-). 

is.-.i! 

(i. 

IS7.-. 

.»■» 

1S71 

M."  ]s\. 

1S71 

;!s. 

210. 

'.sili!) 

2!i.  k;.-). 

LSI.-) 

.-)().   ISO. 

1S7-) 

i(i:;. 

IS77 

40.  ISO.  24S. 

LSI  17 

4!>. 

ISC.S 

:!o.  i;i;i.  21s. 

ISI'iS 

:;o.  2.-)0. 

IS74 

411.  101. 

ISCiS 

(i.  :■■<.  Ki.'i. 

IS71 

2!l.  1(1."..  24S. 

IS74 

11;.-.. 

1,S(!S 

2:?.  17(1. 

IS7-I 

242. 

IS.-)2 

.'..-..  7s.   i;i.-).    !,-7 

24S. 

IS.-)!! 

(>. 

isi;o 

Mil. 

KS('.7 

1). 

ISII2 

r^:^.  22;!.  22o.  2;!(; 

Ks.-)2 

10.  T)!).  20(). 

HiSI 

2.-). 

l()8.-. 

Sd. 

IS.-)I 

:•,. .-.;!.  70.  ss.  ',10 

'.i;{.  101. 227. 

IS2S 

.-). 

ISliS 

;;7.  i.-.(j.  240. 

IS  10 

!). 

IS72 

.-i7.  10;!. 

is7;i 

40.  102.  2:i(i.  240 

ISI7 

2.-).  '.d.  '.IS. 

1S41  2;)S.  2:i'.). 

1S4S  r.;i.  220. 

is7(i  HI.  ■>'>.  1;!.-). 

1S77  •').■).  1  ;{.->. 

1S.-|1I  -2X1. 


w^. 


m!""P*" 


BVE 


XXXIl 


TAIU.K  or  CASKS  (  ITKl). 


Ill 


!    1 


Nqiucs  of  fuses. 


I  Wlii'ii 
Wlici'c  rcpovtod.  ilo- 

I  cldccl. 


At  wlmt  scctioiiH 
cited. 


\u.«hvillf  i<:('.  I{.  Co.  V.  Diivul     .  d  IFi'i^U.  -.'in 
v..Jiicksiin  .  11  llci-^U.  •_'7I 
N:ivi^;iii(>ii  Co.  v.  Dwycr     .        .  lin  'I'cx.  K'H 
\<'!il  \'.  SaiiiKlci'soii       .         .        .  J  S.  i'j  M.  ■")72 
.Nelson  V.  Iliidsiiii  Kivcr  |{.Co.    .  is  .\.  V.  »!)S 

V.  Nilliolllll  S((';Mllslli|i  Co  7  lii'll.  Hid 

V.  Woodruff  .  .  .1  lii.ick,  !.■)(; 
Xcinoiirs  V.  N'.iiirc  .  .  .  I'.i  ||(]\v.  Iii2 
Ncvilis    V.    l{;iv  Sl.il,'  Stc;niil)o;il 


Co. 


I  I'x.s a.  •.':»:. 


Neville  V.  Cork  Ac.  !{.  Co.  .       .  :i  !]■.  I,.  '1'.  i;:)    . 

<  '<iii.  I..  .1.  :;(i(i 

XowMfk. 'I'hr  .V:,'^.        .        .  :  Hliickf.  L'li:!     . 

New   l{niii>\\  ick  SI.  Xmv.  Co.  \-. 

Tiers -;4  y. ,(.  (F.:i\\)  (;!»7 

Xewliliril  \-.  .Iiisl    .         .  .  .  iJ  C.  I'y;  !'.  70 

Xe\vl)er!;('r  V.  Express  Co.    .  .  11  I'liila.  171 

Newell  V.  Siiiitli    .         .         .  .V.I  N't.  •_'."> 

New  .(ei'.-ey    Steiuii    N;iv.  Co.  v.i 

Mereiiaiii's  Hank       .        .  .  d  Hd.v.  :!|| 


New  Jersey.  The  .         .         .  .  Oleoti.  Ill 

New   Orleans    Mni.    Ins.    Co.  v. 

New  Orleans  i*;;!'.  R.  < ',,.   .  .  -jo  i,,.,.   \|,|,_  ;j()j 

Newsladl  V.  Adani'i       .         .  .  .'i  !  )iiei-.  lU 

New  \\<irld.  The  v.  Kjnn-      .  .  n;  |[,,\v.  W.)       '. 
New  York  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.  Fraloff !)  Cmh.  I...),  i;;-' 

Niajj:ara. 'I'he  V.  Cordes        .  .  lil  lluw.  7 


.:  IS71  I.  i-i. 

.  1S71  (i-J.  !N7. 

.  ls(;7  (!. 

.  isil  :>.  III. 

.  IS7J  ."i.'>.  :il--'.  •_>!:;.  •.'•.» I. 

.  IS7I  -JM.  ISI. 

.  lS(>i  -J'.l.  -'I."i.'  L'.')li. 

.  iN'ii;  -I'.K  I';."). 

.  is,".! I  ,-,.-..   IOC. 

.  is7:.  J  it;.  221, 

.  iMfi  2:1.  k;.".. 

.  is.vi  i;.s.  II.  2;!. .")!.■.' IS. 

.,  Is2;.  i:t:!. 

.!  isik;  ,-i!i.  iiw.  121. 

.j  1S77  111.  Hi:,. 

,;  Isis  2!i.  ss.  i;i;;,  iji». 


221!.    : 
2t;(i. 
I  Sid    Ki,-..  2(iii 


iis.  2.'):.. 


Nieholas  v.  New  York  I'ce.  J{.  Co.  I  IIiiii.:i27. 

...  ,    ,  ■<!  T:ioni|).  iV  C.  liili; 

Nieholson  V.  Willaii      .         .         .  :,  Ka»i.  .-)07 
Nolton  V.   AVestern    K.   Coip.      .  |:,  x.  y.  ||(. 
Northern    I.ine    I'aeket     Co.    v. 

^.^''"■:ii''''' til  III.  2ti:!  . 

Nitrwifh  Co.  V.  Wrjirjit        ,        .  l;i  Uiill    li)i 

Nii-entv.  Smith    .'      .         .  I.,  i;.  I  ( '.  IMMv.  I'l    ]s::,    | '  •.>„; 

l*>l';il^'.  |{ep.  (Moid<l 

2o:i  i 

T..    I{.  1   C.    ]'.  Div.  ' 

^.      .  1 2:1 

Nmiin-v.  Conn.  ite.  IJ.  Co.       .  1  (Jrav.  .1I12        .  Is-.i-,,, 


lf<<ls'  1;!.  171!.  2  IS. 

Is.V.  .-.,-..  I  lis. 

ls.".;i  21).  i;i(».  21.").   220. 

I^7!l  1  !!».  ]-.!». 

I.^.'.s  I.  211.    Mil.    It;.-.. 

2  IS.  2."ii;. 

ls7.'>  2S.  .■.:..  i;i(;. 


IMM  2:..  2(1,  IM. 

Is.'ili  220. 

Is7l  ;is.  2.".-l. 

.    1S7I  111 


():ikey  v.  fJordon  . 

Oakley  V.  St-.'iin  I'aekT^t  Co! 

Oeean  Wave.  The  . 

(Jliio  \e.  J{.  Co.  V.  Dnnl.a.-  ". 

V.  .Mnhl'ii"'. 

V.  Sell.,-    ". 

V.  Y(.iM'e 


.  7  r.i!  Ann.  2:{."i 
.  I!  Hx.  (US. 

iilJiss.  ;ii7. 

20  111.  t;2:!  . 

:ioill.  11     . 

17  liid.  171 

"il  liid.   1^1 


IN.".-'  i:i.  2,!(;.  212. 

is.-i;  !). 

IS72  21).  ii;.->.  21s. 

1>^"»'  II.  11;. 

I  St;  I  21.".. 

1S7I  :!!i.  12s.  211.   117. 

21s. 

Is7:i  17. 


/*-    -^ 


^ 


TAIJLK  <)l'  CASKS  (ITKl). 


XXXlll 


NiiTiKw  of  case.' 


Wlicic  r('|i(iilc(l. 


Ohrloff  V.  iJiisiiill 


OIIhms.  Till-    .... 
(Ih\('ll  \ .  .\ilaiii<  lOx.  C'l 
(»iirii>l.  'I'Ih'  .... 
Upiiciilicinifi'  V.  r.  S.  Kx.  <'o 

( )i,iu'n(l().  'I'lic 

Or.iiijL^c  ("ouiity  nmik  v.  Hrnw  n 

Orillamiiir.  Tlic     • 

Oniilorif  V.  A(laiii«  Hx.  Co  . 

Owcii  V.  liiiriK'il    . 

Oxlt'V  V.  St.  Louis  i*tc.  1!.  Co 


I-.  K.  1  r.  ('.  -JIM 

.1-J.fiir.  (N.S.)(!7r) 

:ir.  L.  J.  I*.  ('.  (M 

!!.•)  W.  1{.  -jO-J 

II  I.,  r.  (\.  s.)  s7:t 

4  M.Kirc  I'.  ('.  (.'.  (X 

S.)   7(1 


Will'"  I  Al  wlinl  HOctiollS 
H.l.'c^l  J •^•l^'"- 

18(1(1  |I«4,  248. 


;$  Wvu.  14S. 
1  (Vat.  I,.  .1.  isii 
I  li.'ii.  i:u. 
«;!!  111.  i;-2   . 


.    ISCJI  :2'.».  ISO,   IM.  2IS, 


■  i  1S74  (1-J.  1(12. 

.:  is(i7  nv. 

.:  is7:t  2(t.  I's.  ss.  110,  05, 
j  io:<,  11:;. 

;{N  1..  T.  (X.  s.)  i.-.i.  ■::,(;. 

'.)  WiMui.  s.">       .       .'  is:t2  20.  .'i.'i. 

I  Sawv.  i7t;        .         .1  1S70  '2:i.  ISO.  ls|.  -MS. 

■:,  Hiisi'i.  I'M       .       .1  is(;7  12.  it;{.  1:1:!. 


2  Cr.  \  .M.  ;i.M 
(m  Mo.  (i2!). 


I'acllic.  TIk^ 1  hrailv.  17 

I'ackard  v.  Karic  .         .         .         .  IIH  Ma--.  2S0    . 

I'almcr  V.  (Jrainl  .Imiclioii  K.Col  M.  .V  \V.  740  .  .' 

Pariliii^^ton  V.  Soiiili  Wales  |{.  ( 'o  ;!s   Ihii;.   Law   i<:  K(il 

Ki'i".  ■i:>2       .  .1 

I  II.  v'v  X.  ;i;i2  ! 

2,liir.  (X.  S.)  1210     i 
l;;cal.    122         .         .! 

71  111.  lie. .  .       .| 

10  111.  .■-:.(; . 

II  Wcml.  2l.->  .        J 
V.\  IJarl).  ;{.■);{  . 
.!  I  N't.  222.  .         .1 

I..  i;.;j  Aiim.  4:{(J     .| 

21  i..  "i".  (X.  S.)  S40  I 
(17  I  "a.  Si.  ,"00    .         .! 

.■)  X.  V.  is(;      .       .j 

Dmllov.  l.V.t       .         .! 

;ti  coiiii.  14.5    . 

Kill.  I,,  ('as.  47:5       .! 
O.lur.  X.  S.  01  I 
;i2  I..  .1.  (,».  I',.  241 

11  w.  K.  102:? 

S  I,.  T..  X.  S.  7(iS 
10  Wis.  lis 

04  V.  S.  10 1       . 


I8;{:{ 

1S77 


1H(J1 

KS7:{ 
is:5o 

IS.Ki 


Parks  V.  .Mta  Cal.  'I'.'l.  Co 
I'ariiiclcc  V.  I.owil/ 

V.  Mc'Xiili.v  . 
I'aisoiis  \-.  IImimIv  . 

V.  Moiitcath     . 
I'a;a|)S('o  Ins.  ( 'o.  v.  (  'oiiIom 
I'alriu.  Thr    . 

i'aiHTS'iii  V.  Clydf 

I'atlisoii  V.  IManchaiil  . 

I'aUoii  V.  Majiratli 

I'rck  V.  \\  (■.■ks       . 

\\>k  V.  X.  s:affor(!-l'ii!'  U.  Co 


120. 

.')(•.  122,  17:;.  2.-)4. 


20.  12"). 

40. 

l(i,  10(1. 


1(1.  IIS. 


(•(■I'l  V.  Cliicapi  (."tc.  i'.  Co  . 
I'cik  V.  Cliicajio  i\..-.  K.  Co  . 
I'l'inln'i-Ioi)    Co.    V.    X.    Y.  Cent. 

I{.  t'o 101  Mass.  144     . 

I'cii(!ci';:ast  V.  Ailains  Kx.  Co       ,  101  Mass.  120     . 
l'c,;i:i-'.(!ar   iV:('.  Si.    Xav.  Co.    v.  II  .Iiir.  (X.  S.)  771 

Shaml. 
I'ciiiicwi'".  V.  (.'iillcii       .         .  .  .">  Half.  2:<S  .     . 

I'.'iiii  V.  iJiiffalo  i*i;r.  H.  I'o  .         .  10  X.  Y.  204      . 

i'ciiii^vlvaiiia  H.  Co.  v.  Butler     .  .■)7  l*a.  St.  :W.">    . 
V.  I'aiirhihKlo  111.  200  . 
ili 


IS.-.!)    I. 

1S74  11. 
is.-.s   I. 

is:i.-)  |4. 

is.-.i  '.-..  (i.  7. 

is;!()  !2rM. 

1S71  :i(;r). 

1S71  Lv.i.  2  IS. 

isni  242. 

is:<s  .-..(J I. 

is()7  :m,  0!). 

is(;:{  27,  no. 


ISC..-)  ;(;7, 

is7(;  1. 

1S70 


240. 


;4o,  ii;{. 

ISCO  i4(l,  2:{(). 
1211. 

1840  :n. 

1872    Ui.   .■).-). 
I     IS5. 

isos  ir.o,  2IS. 
is7a  ;?s.  211. 


2:i2, 2:5(j. 

242. 


100,  i:{7, 


lil!! 

3 


XXXIV 


TAIILK  OF  CASKS  (ITKl). 


NlimON  of  CIIMCX. 


Ulu.,on,..,..t..d.      p:;i:';"|Vt,vhttt.ectlo«. 


Pcmisylviiiiiii  H.  Co.  v.    Hciulfi'- 

soii        .  .'il  I'll.  >:.  ;!I.">    . 
V.    .M('('l(.s- 

kcy        .  Jl!  I'll.  St.  :>-2i>    . 

V.    Srln\;liv,-| 

i'iilicr;.'t'r:i:)  I'.i.  .s:.  -Jits    . 

Pcrcirc.  Till- s  ]{rii.  :;ii|. 

ri'rkiii<  V.  New  York  Ci'iil.  K.CoJI  X.  V.  |!)i;      . 

V.  roriiiiiid  Sir.  u.  Co   .Jir  Mf. :.;.!. 

rcrry  V. 'l'lii)iii|)«oii       .         .        .  US  .M:i>^. -jr.) 
riicrmi  V. 'I'lic  Alviiiado       .        .  I  .\iii.  1,.  .1.  :i;{i'. 
rimlps  V.  >Villiaiii-iiii   .        .        ,  ."i  S:iiiili.  '>7s 

III  N.  V.  1,1'u'.  Obsr. 

Pliilail.'li)liia  \c.  I{.  Co.  V.  Id'ihy  1 1  llo\\.  Ids 
I'liilliix  V.  IJriiiliaiii      .         .       '.  •_'(!  (Ja.  017. 

V.  Clark    .        .        .        .]■>('.  IJ.  ^^■.  S.)  \M  . 
jlt.liir.  (N.  .S.)  1(17 

•j<;  I-. .].  c.  V.  Ids 

V.  Karli'    .        .         .        .s  IMck.  !>l'. 

V.  Norlli  Carolina  U.  Co. '78  N.  C.  i".i| 
riio'iiix    Ills.    Co.    V.    Krif    Ac. 

'I'raiis.  Co 

rii^kcrini;  v.  Biirkicy    .        .        .  j  .Stvlc.  ];»•_' 
I'ic^kford  V.  (J(l.  Jiiiictioii  U.  Co  .  12  .V|.  ,S:  w.  7dil. 
riacc  V.  Ciiioii  Kx.  Co.         .         .jj  |li||.  |ii  . 
riiMTc  V.  Milwaukee  a   SI.   I'anl 

l{- Co L>;!  Ui>.  ;is7 

Plaistcil  V.  Ho^toii  Sf.  Xav.  Co  .!J7  Me.  l;!2. 
Porter  V.  Soiiiherii  Ex.  Co  .  .'j  .S.  C.  l;}."). 
Porlsiiioiilli.  'I'lie  Id  Willi,  (js-j. 

l2  niss.'.v;  ".' 
Poiiclier  V.  Xew  York  Cent.  U.\ 


\si\:,    :,<).  217.  21s. 

is,-) I  :,'.,. 

isd'{  .".!».  2;i(i.  -.'IJ. 

1S7.")    L".t.  isi.  -ji-. 
isiij  L's.  .■!.'.. s;i. SI.  Kid. 

l::s.  21,-).  220. 
IWIi    21(1. 
1S(;7    Id.  I(»l.  12-'.. 

Id.-.. 
IS.-.2    ,V).  Km, 


IS.-)2    2!i,  Kill.  2i:..   22(t. 
IS.-.II    II. 

ls.'i7  ,70.  ISI. 


1S2!>   2(t.  Id.  1)2. 
1878    240. 

187!)  '2."). 
ldS7    Km. 

\xu  !C).  2;{o. 

IS.\S    ,V).  120.  1 17.  2.'i;i. 


Co       . 
Powell  V.  Lavton  . 


.4!)  X.  Y.  2ii;!     .        .1 
.|2  Bos.  &  Pill.  (X.  J{.) 


V.  Mvers    . 
V.  Peiiii.  U.  Co. 
Powers  V.  Davenport    . 
Prentice  v.  Oeeker 
Price  V.  Ilartsliorn 
V.  Powell     . 
V.  The  I'riel 
Piillinaii  I'al.  Car  Co.  v.  Smith    .  7;i  IlT.":!ilO 
i'lireell  V.  .Soiilliern  Ex.  Co.        .;»(i:,    ;)].-, 


.'2()  \Veii(l.  :.',ll  . 

.';i2  Pa.  Si.  in  . 

.17  IJlackf.  -llld  . 
.■4!)  JJarh.  21 

.'41  Hail),  d.-).-)  . 
.':i  X.  Y.  ;i22 
.10  La.  Ann.  4i:{ 


Qiiiniliy  V.  Vaiiderliilt 


Railroiul  Co.  v.  Aokley 
V.  Ailanis 
V.  Adams 
V.  Allen  . 


V.  Aiidroseojjjiiii 

Mills  "': 


17  X.  Y.  ;!0d 


04  r.  s.  i7!t 

.42  111.471  . 
.  I.-)  Mil  h.  l.-.s 

.:ii  llld.  :;iii 

.!22  Wall.  ,-)lil 


.  isds  217. 

.1  ISI7  d.  II.  K),'). 

.|  1872  dl.  120.  Isii. 

,1  ISdll  2!l.  IC"). 

J  iSdS  Km. 
I 

1S72  128.  IS',),  2211, 

I  Slid     !l. 

IS  II        1..M. 

Is.v.)  II.  Id. .-,;'. 

Is  I,-)  II. 

Isd7  .M.  Ki7, 

isd.')  ,■!.■). 

IS.-iO     .V).   ISO. 

Is.M    Hi.  2  IS. 
Is77    1. 
isdd  :{7. 


l8.-)8    .M.  Kid.  2i2. 


IS7d  1. 

I.'~i<i7  :;s.  12S,  20'i. 

Isid7  17.  ill. 

180!'  :;;!.  12s.  i;;;.  \s:,. 

1S7I  2;).  2;!d.  212.  21;;. 


^ 


TAHLK  OF  CAMKH  CITKI). 


xxxv 


Names  (if  ciiHCH. 


Wlifir   ri'portud. 


When 

(I.'- 

<'iil<'(l. 


Al  wliiil  '••(•tldliM 

I'itCll. 


uilrouU  Co. 

V. 

naliliiiif       . 

in  I'a.  St.  (17      . 

V. 

Ut'ilVtT 

II  hid.    I!i:{ 

V. 

Uliilo-  . 

!tl  I'.  .S.  ISO 

V. 

ItloWIT 

•j(t  w.  n.  77t;    . 

V. 

lliiiily . 

;t2  Md.  ;i:t:i 

V. 

UiiiwnltT    . 

11  Crnl.   !,.  .1.   10 

V. 

Itiirkc . 

i:i  WiMid.  i.ii    . 

V. 

liiiihT. 

.-)7  I'a.  SI.  :t:t.-i  . 

V. 

('Mhlwcll      . 

S  Kas.  211. 

V. 

(':ilil|ilicll     . 

7  llrisk.  •_>.•.:{     . 

V. 

<  'lii'lirw  illi  . 

:>•!  I'a.  SI.  :ts2    . 

\'. 

('nln'liiml     . 

•-M  111.  ;!:!•-'. 

V. 

( 'o\\  Ics 

:t-->  III.  in; . 

V. 

(N.X      . 

■>'■>  Ind.  :t(io. 

\  . 

Cri^l.  . 

11  '•.  15.  .VJ7       . 

\ 

<'niii('li 

;{ II.  iS:  N.  is:»  . 

\  . 

Ciirniii 

10  (thin  St.    1      . 

\ . 

havi.l. 

(i  ll.'isk.  2til       . 

\ . 

I>cii)y 

II  How.  ICS      . 

\ . 

Ddriii.'iii 

72  111.  .^Ol  . 

V. 

DiMiliiir 

20  III.  02:!  . 

V. 

Diiiiliaiii 

IS  ('.  M.  S2i; 

V. 

Kdiiioiids    . 

11  Ala.  (1(17 

V. 

I'Miivliilil     . 

ll'.l  III.  2(>0  . 

V. 

Fitrnici'V  Bank 

20  Wis.  122 

\ . 

l''(l|SV'll 

i\\  I'a.  St.  SI 

\ . 

Kialoff 

OCfnl.  I..  .1.  43 

\ . 

Fiaiikciilicrj; 

.-)l  Ill.SS    . 

\' 

Franks 

11  Miss.  104 

V. 

(Jlcnister    . 

22  W.  K.  72        . 

211  I..  T.  (\.  S.) 

V. 

(ircciiwdod 

70  I'a.  si.:i7;t 

\ . 

Hair    . 

(1  Mi.'li.  211! 

V. 

Hall     . 

.•)S  111.   100  . 

\ 

Hawkins     . 

IS  Mi.li.  427 

V. 

ilcalun 

;{7In(l.  IIS 

\ 

ll.'dovr 

0  Hn<ii.  (;t:> 

V. 

lli'ndci'sDn  . 

.•>l  I'a.  SI.  :ii.-) 

V 

Ih-nli-in       . 

.V2  Ala.  (iO(! 

^ 

Ili'iili'in       . 

.")(;  Ala.  :t(;s 

\ 

I|iilli)\vay    . 

1  I..  iV  Ivi.  U. 

\- 

llupkins"     . 

41  Ala.  4S(; 

V 

■fai'kson 

(1  ll.-isk.  271 

\' 

•larltdi- 

II  Ala.  (il4 

V. 

.liilinsiiM 

;u  111.  ;iso  . 

V 

.loncs  . 

2  Head.  .-)I7 

\- 

Jones . 

1),-)  r.  s.  nil) 

()  Ct'iit.  L.  J.  4." 

\' 

Locksviiod  . 

2s  Ohio  St.  ;i:)S 

\ 

Lofkwood  . 

17  \Vall.:i.-.7 

\ 

Manufac'turinj;- 

Co   . 

u;  Wall.  :us 

» 

\' 

Mairns 

;{s  111.  210  . 

\ 

Maris  . 

Hi  Kas. :!:(;{ 

4-22 


1S.-)1 

20.  .v.),  10(1,  l.V.). 

1S7;( 

:(i).  217. 

lS7(t 

1. 

IS72 

1  1.  10. 

1  SI  ill 

4.-).  104,218. 

1S71) 

12. 

is;t.-, 

i:i.-). 

isds 

.■)1),  218. 

1S71 

II.  181. 

1S72 

2:17 ,  210. 

isiii; 

2:»o. 

ISO') 

210. 

lso:{ 

210. 

ISliS 

HI).  107. 

is.-.i 

2.-). 

is.-,:t 

2;io. 

isoo 

.■)7.  217.  218. 

1S71 

1.  12. 

IS,-)2 

21).  21.-).  220. 

1S74 

10. 

1  S.")S 

11.  III. 

lS,-)0 

27. 

1S0S 

2:1,170. 

is7;i 

:{8,  211. 

ISO.-) 

07.  102. 

ISO!) 

.■)1).  2:$li.  240.  244. 

1S71) 

111).  l.")l). 

1S7(> 

:ts.  177.  2;io,  238, 

240. 

1807 

40. 

187:» 

2.-). 

1S7.-) 

1)1). 

1  S.V.I 

10.  17.  70.  !»8. 

1S71 

2:». 

ISO!) 

10.  2:!.  47.  i:$7. 

1S71 

;»!).  7:5.  12S.  i:«:}. 
1  "(I 

1S7:5 

1  ( (i. 

10.  42.  1:57.  240. 

lS(i.-. 

.-)1).  217.  218. 

187.-) 

10.  2:i.  :(().   122. 

17.->,  2.-)0. 

1870 

:{0. 

1S77 

121. 

180S 

;{().  1:1:1. 21  s. 

1871 

02.  1S7. 

ISOS 

:io.  2.-)0. 

ISO  I 

240. 

IS.V.) 

02.  1.-jO. 

1877 

ID. 

1870 

.-.7.  170.241). 

I87:i 

20,  74,  100.  110. 

1S72    21).  10.-).  1:M,  240, 

2.-).5,  257. 
ISO.-)   ,20. 
1S70    41. 


BB 


XXXVI 


TAIIM:  OI'  (ASKS  crTKI). 


i! 


ii 


Nitmeiof  coHON, 


Wliori)  rt'j)ort«'U. 


■YVIkmi  I 
<li--    I  At  Hiiiit  N«>(' 
t'Uutl. 


•Idcit.  I 


lions 


Riillri'ud  < '<>, 


V.  M,Clr||;lIl  . 
V.  MrCldskcy. 
V,  .Mi|)ipiiiiiiy;li 
V.  MrWIiiiiiii'y 
V.  Mrniiiiim    , 

V.  Mciiil;;<imt'iy 

v.M' III  find    .' 

V.  .Mciuri' 

V.  .\Iiirri-.iii     , 

V.  Muivillr       . 

V.  Mnlilin^'     . 

V.  Miiiidy 

V.  Nelson 
V.  Nichols       . 
V.  People 
V.  I'erkiiis 
V.  I'erkiiis 
V.  I'lper 

V.   I'olltllis 

V.  I'nilt  . 


V.  Rajrsdiile    . 

V.  Kiitlilioiie   . 

V.  IfeiMi  . 

V.   Kecves 

V.  ({emiiiy 

V.  Reynolds    . 

V.  Ko'ji,'ers 

V.  Siiycrs 

V.  Seiinin.'ielier 

V.  Scliwiirzenljei'- 

irer 
V.  Splliy  . 
V.  SlK'iilienl     . 

V.  Skeels 
V.  Sniitli 
V.  Sinitli 
V.  Sinnek 
V.  Sinyser 
V.  Spniit 
V.  Stevens 

V.  Sinuii 
v.  'riioiiipsoii  . 
V.  Wan!  . 
V.  Wasliliiiiii  . 
V.  Weill)  . 
V.  Weiner 
V.  Weir  . 
V.  Whittle 
V.  Wilcox 


V.  Worland     . 
V.  Yolie 
V.  Voting 
Kaii^rt.,.  V.  Great  Western  K.  Co 


.'.Mill.  r.s.  . 
.•j;t  I'a.  St.  .v.'d  . 
.  ••I  Mi.h.  m,-)     . 
.:ti;  ind.  i:m 

..VJ  111.  IJ.t  . 
.  II  <;a.  :!7s 

.:(;o  III.  I7.-. . 

..•d  Ala,  ;ili| 
.1!)  111.  liid. 
.  7  |{ail\\a\  Cas.  s;tO 

.;(»  111.  !i  '  . 

.JI  Ind.  IS. 

I 

•  il  Cold.  ■J7l» 
.11  Kas.  I!)!.') 

.;.•.(;  111.  :)i;:. . 
.L'.">  .Mich.  :ii'!i     . 
.  17  .Mich. -jiKi     . 

.  i:t  Kas.  ,-)(»,•■ 

.  l!M)lii(.  .St.-JJI  . 

.I'J2  Wall.  I:i;t      . 

.l|<!Miss..|.-)S 
.IW.Va.S7 

.;<7  111.  isi . 

.  10  Wall.  I7i;       . 
.  i;f  Ind.  .MS 
.'s  K;is.  r,-s.{ 

.  (1  ilci^k.  1  i;i      . 

.  2ii(;ralt.  ;ii»7      . 
.211  Md.  li;s 

.'•1."i  i'a.  .St.  litis    . 

.  -17  Ind.    171 

.  II  Kiiij.  Law  l^c  Eip 

.;{  w.  V;i..v.(;    . 
.71  111.  I!»7  . 
..si  111.  L':i!i . 

.  I!)  IikI.  :U)2 

.:is  III.  ;;,-,i  . 
.-'Diiv.  I     . 

.!).">  r.  s.  (i.M 

fJCciit.  I-.  J.  '207 
.SI  111.  .-)0I  .         ... 
.  l!i  111.  .^.7s  . 
.2  Mich..-.;!s 
. .")  .Veil.  117 
Mx  .Ma.  .-)S,-, 
.111  Miss.  72.-)       . 
.  ;f7  Mich.  Ill       . 

.  27  (; a.  .■>:{.-. 

.  .SI  111.  2:il)  . 

■)0  Ind.  ;t;{i» 

■  >\  Ind.  ISI 
2S  hnl.  ,-)l(i 
1  Itaihvay  (,'as.  1      . 


2:t.'.. 
212. 


.'■i  I . 


.1  1M7I)  -AH.  Ill  I. 

.  l.s,-|  ,•.11. 

.  1S7(I  1 1.  Id. 

.  IS71  :iii.  |s(i. 

.     IS(1!»    212. 

.    IS7I    ;t7.  212. 

.    1S7I    :is.  Jilt!.  •_>(!). 

.    IS7I  212. 

,    ls,-)7  ;is.  I2S.  22.'). 

,    ls.-,i>  ■.>■•■. 

isdl  -J I.-). 

isi;;i  :{!i.  I2s.  i.-)(i. 

i.».'(;(>*(;2. 210. 

1S72  HI.  II. 

ls7(i  210. 

ls72  I  I,  HI.  1011. 

istis  17.  III. 

1S7I  k;. 

isiiii  .•)7.  ]{)■>.  2ls. 

1571  211.  2;ii;.  210. 

211. 

1572  111. 
isi;,-)   (iii. 

ls(i.-)  :ts.  ji.-,,  21  s. 

ISO!!     Id.   |l>. 

is.-):)  ;!!(.  ii;{.  12S. 

IS7I      1  I.   II!.    II.    L'l 

IS71    2:!s.  j|(i. 
|S7.-,    (1.-).  7(1. 
I. SOS    210. 

is(i;t  :,'.).  2;!(i.  212. 
IS7I   mi.  12s.  211. 

i.s.vj  20. 

ISIiil    0(1. 

1H7I  j:t.s. 

1210. 

IS7I  ;;ii.  i.'>o.  iss. 

I.s(r.  ;{s.  12.-). 

isiM  212. 

1.S77  2:1.  217.  21s. 


ls7i;  :is.  2:i7. 

is.-)S  20. 

l.s.-);t  17. 

1S7(!  I  ()..■)(). 

1.S72  I. 

1S7I  lit.  101. 

1.S77  21.V 

IS.Vi  1-1.  1(1. 

1S7(J  ;{s.  ;i(i.  iok.  2;{(; 

210. 

IS7.")  1)11.  2.VI. 

ls7.-.  17. 

i.s(!7  :ti). 

l,s;ts  2.-). 


Ifoli 

Kohii 


h'orki 

]{od. 

h'oot 

Houll 

Ho-<> 

J{oss 

Howl 

KllSS. 


.Saire 

.St. 


TAULl::  Ol-  lAHK.S  CITKU. 


XXXVIl 


Nllllll'x  III     I'llNI'H, 


Wliuru  r«port«d. 


do- 
ctdod. 


Al    ulllll     KCrlillllN 

iltoU. 


|{;i\v<<))ii  V.  Iliilliiiiil 

V.  l*i'iiii-\  l\Miii:i  |{.  ( 'ii.  . 

V.  l'i'iiii-\  l\Miii;i  |{.  ( 'ii.  . 
ItllV  V.  TIm"  MilwilllKi'i'  Itrllc 
J{(iul  V.  SI.  I.iiiii-  iVc.  U.  <  '<>. 

\ .  S|Miiiiiiiiir 

V.  S|i;lll|ilili^' 

Ut'llVt'f*  V.  \N;il('liniili  . 

Ki'lii'i'i'ii,  'I'lic  ,  .  ,  . 

I'i'il|iiiili  V.  NiinuliMii  . 

\'.  N'mmuIimii  . 

Kri'd  V.    I    llili'il  Mull'-   Ks.  <'i).       . 

V.  S;ir;ilii;i;i  iVi'.   It.  Cn. 
l!iM'-i.|i'.  'I'lic  .         .         .         . 

lifll   V.    I>'ll|l|l  .  .  .  . 

lil'IIO  V  .    lIllUMII         .  .  .  . 

\U\  iiiiliN  \.    rii|i|i;m     . 
|{li"(l('<  V.  l.iiiii-villc  It.  <  'n. 
liici'  V.  K;iii'>;i-  \i-.  1{.  ( 'i>.    . 

Itil'll   V.    I.MIIllll'l  I      .  .  .  . 

ItirliiinN  \.  Iliiii-cii 

\.  Wcicuii     . 
It'll  IiiiiiImiii  v.  Si'wcII    . 

Jtil'kctt    V.    nMirillHHV  Ac.    it.   (  'ii.    . 

liil'V  \ .  Iliiriii'       .         .         .         . 

\i\[/.  \ .  I'riiiis\  iMiiiia  It.  ( 'o. 
Itixliinl  V.  Siii'iili  .         .         .         . 

ItiiliiTis  V.   Itili'V      .  .  .  . 

\.  'riinicr 
ItiilitM'tsiiii  V.  Kciiiicily 
liiiliiii.^oii    V.   (ii'ciit    Western    It. 
(J 

V.      Mereli:ilirs      DN, 
'I'lMIIS.   Co. 


Huckel.  The  . 

Itnili  rick  V.  It;iilriiii(l  Co.     . 

HiMit  V.  (Jre;||  Western  ]{.  ('(1. 
Kontli  V.  Ndrliie.istein  ]{.  ('(I. 
Hi)se  V.  l)e-  .M(iinesiV:e.  Jl.Co. 
IJi.ss  V.  'iliiV   \e.   It.  ("d. 
Hdwley  \.  Iliirne  . 
Hiissell  V.  Nieniiin 


.MIX.  Y.  111!      . 

iHT'i 

,W.  12.*i.  llo. 

•J'JM, 

■J  .M.I.. IV.  (X.S.)  2J() 

|S(17 

IS  N.  V.  ■2\-2      . 

I.S72 

.'i."..    IIMl. 

IS  .\ni.  1,.  T.  liep.  (15 

IMIIII 

2!».  Hi.".. 

I'll!  Ml..    I'.l'.l 

I.S75 

.•.().  I7S.  2 IS. 

.-.  Hi i-w. ;;!•.■) 

1H.')(I 

1.  t.  .v..  IIIJI. 

I, VS.  2;t;i. 

III. 

;;(i  \.  ^Miitit     . 

]Si\\ 

II).  mil.  1 11. 

2;  111. 

•_'  Speels.   1117       . 

ISIll 

11.  (11.  Id.-.. 

1   Wiire.  jSS 

is;n 

2!l.  Kl.'i. 

:,■>  Hull.,  is'.i      . 

IMIS 

'ht.    In."!. 

is  \.  V.  fi.V.        . 

1N7I 

.v..  Id.-.. 

IS  .\.  V.  1112      . 

IS72 

.v..  1(1,1.  177. 
21(1.  212. 

2:i(i. 

Ill  Wenil.  .Vtl     . 

ISIlS 

212. 

2  Snin.  .Ml" 

is;»7 

211.  1(1."..  2.".(i. 

;t  w.  \  s.  21     . 

IS  11 

2(1. 

12  It.  .Mull.  ii:(   . 

isr.i 

12.  isi. 

1.-.  .M.i".  :i7()      . 

ISllI 

2211. 

11  1{|I-.1|.(1SS 

ls7:» 

12.  I;i7.  2()S. 

ii:!  Mil.  :ti  1 

ls7(i 

.")(),  122. 

I2llu\v.:tl7       . 

is.-.i 

l(i.-).  2  IS. 

1S7!) 

2r)(t. 

2  Hdsw.  .".Sli 

IS.-.S 

1. 

2  Smith  m.  n.)  2l).'>  . 

ISO.-) 

2  IS. 

(11  r.url..  IS 

I.S7I 

,M.  2.1(1. 

1     I.MII-.    1  111 

.-.  Itin--.  217 

1S2S 

S.  2r>.  !l(l.  100 

,  i:i;j 

2  M.A  1'.  ;t:Ji 

Ills. 

11  rhilii.  sj 

l,s.-,s 

1(1.  .V.I. 

r.2  N.  11. ;(.-..-.     . 

IS72 

;i.  1(1.    :.:). 

211. 

i;i7. 

1.-.  I.:i.  .Vim.   10:t 

1  SI  lit 

i:;.  III.  nil. 

I2.li.liii-.  2:!2     . 

isi.-. 

:i. 

2  l>:m;i.  l;t(l 

ISlil 

r>. 

II  W.  U.  20(1     .        .    lS(l.->    lis. 

r.  I..  .1.  ('.  r.  1211 


l.">  liiwii,  I7(»      .        .    IS77    K 


I  Miss,  r.l  .  .  ISdO 

7  W.  V.i.  .->!  .  .;  lS7:i 

I.'.  N.  V.  .V21  .  .1  1S7I 

L.  H.  2  Hx.  173  .'  1.S(17 

It'.l  Inwii.  21(1  .  .  1S7I 

lOVt.liill  .  .  IS77 

It  Jtiii;;-.  2    .  .  .'  182.') 

17  C.  Jt.   (\.  S.)  100  18(14 


Siiiri'f  V.  Pi.rtsmi.iitli  ite.  U.Co.  .  Itl  M(>.  22s 
St.  .Ii.lm  T.  I'lNpiessC I  NVi.tiils.  (112 

V.  \'an  SiiiitVdord  .         .  2.">  Wend.  (lilO 


t.  102.  112.  Ill, 
201.  211.  22;t. 
221.212. 

2!».  l(i.">.  2 IS. 

2lt. 

211."..  21(1.  212. 

ir.i. 

10.  21S. 
2lt. 

IIS.  100. 
lit. 


1.S.-0    11.  41.  101.  lltS. 
1.S7I    20.  2!).   lltl.  201, 

2It(l.  212. 
1841    240. 


P 


V 


(    { 


xxxvni 


TABLE  OF  CASKS  CITKD. 


I. 


I 


l«l 


Nniiii'.-'  of  cii^.cx. 


Wlu'ii-  ifiidi-tcd. 


I 


When 

de- 
cided 


At  wlint  Heetions 
cited. 


St.  John  V.  Villi  SantviMird  . 

St.  Louis  &e.  K.  Co.  v.  Dorniaii 
V.  riper 
V.  Simiek    . 

Sanipsoii  V.  Ga/.zirn 

Saiifonl  V.  Jloiisatonic  11.  Co. 

Saiilee.  'i'lie 

Savaj>e  v.   Corn   ICxeliaiiec    Ii.-. 
Co.       .        .  .        .        . 

Seaife  v.  Farnint  .        .        .        ■ 

V.  tairant  .        .        .        • 

Sii:ieff('liiiv.  Harvey    . 

Selirooder  v.   lliulson   Kiver  H. 

Co 

School  District  v.  liostoii  A:e.  H. 

Co 

Sc'hntter  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co. . 

Scotliorn  v.  Sontii  Slaffordsliire 

It.  Co 

Scranton  v.  Fanner's  Bank  . 

Seldonv.  Williams 

Shiiw  V.  York  &  Midland  K.  Co. 

Sheltou  V.  Merchant  "s  Dis.  Co.    . 
V.  Merchant  "s  Dis.  Co.    . 

Shonk  V.  Phila.  Propeller  Co.      . 
Shcniian  v.  Hudson  iScc.  li.  Co.  . 

V.  Wells 
Siiiiiiioiis  V.  Law  .... 

V.  l-aw  . 

V.  New  JSedford  Ac.  1{. 

Co 

Simons  v.  Great  Western  K.  Co. 
V.  Grea^  Western  K.  Co. 
Sinioii  V.  The  Fuufj  Sliiicy  . 
Siiiffleton  v.  Ililliard  . 
Siordet  V.  Hall  .  .  .  . 
Sisson  V.  Cleveland  &c.  il.  Co.  . 
Six  Hundred  and  Tliirty  Casks  . 
Skinner  v.  Loudon  I'ic.  K.  Co.     . 

V.  Hall  .  .  .  . 
Sleat  V.  Fafjjr  .... 
Slim  V.  Great  Northern  li.  Co.     . 


.(I  Hill.  157 

.72  111.  .'.Ill  . 
.  i;i  Ka<.  ."ill.') 
.Ill  liul.  :i(iJ 
.  t;  Fort.  ij:i 

.  11  Cnsh.  !,■).■>      . 
.  -J  IJeii.  .")!'.) 
7  IJIatchf.  isi;    . 

;!(!  N.  Y.  lM.">      . 

•_•;{  \v.  H.  iiiu     . 

■_'  Cent.  L.  .1.  :i.s;! 

■j:t  w.  K.  St  I)     . 
■1  Cent.  L.  .1.  (it).") 
C.luhns.  170      . 
Auth.  .')(! 


lSi:«  -240. 

1S7I  Ki. 

1S7I  11.10!).  177.  2:10, 

1S7)  :'.!!.  1"'0.  ISS. 

is;i7  :«o.  Hi."). 

]s.-):{  Id.  172. 

ISCS  211.  120. 

|S7(l  14S. 


1S7,-)    i,-)l. 

i,s7.")  ir>i. 

isio  i:i.  .").").  12.").  l<ir> 
1S7. 


1IH 


Slocum  V.  Fail-child 
V.  Fail-child 
Smith  V.  Bi-azelt(ui 


.")  Ducr.  .").") 

1(12  Mass.  .•).V2  . 
(i  Cent.  L.  .1.  17.") 
.">  .Mo.  (Api).)  ;5u; 

S  Fx.;!!!    . 

2)  X.  Y.  1 21       . 

!l  Watts.  !l 

i:u^H.  :!I7     . 

I!  Hailwav  <  'as.  S7 

r.ll  \.  Y."2.")S      . 

;{(i  N.  Y.  (S.  C.)  r)27 

00  Fa.  St.  10!)  . 
(11  N.  Y.  2.-.  J  . 
2S  Bail).  |();{  . 
sj{osw.  2i:{ 
;{Keycs.  21!)  . 

!I7  Mass.  ■.if,]       . 
2C.  H.  (X.  S.)  <;-20 
IS  c.  B.  SO.") 
21  I,a.  Ann.  Wa 

1  SiroMi.  20:?     . 
4  Biiiji".  1107 

14  Mich.  4S!)      . 
14  Bl.itchf.  .")17  . 

2  K.  ...  A-  K.  ;t(;o 

")  Kx<'ii.  7S7 

00  Me.  477 

.")  Barn.  i<:  Aid.  ;?42 

14  C.  B.  (M7 

2  C.  F.  I{.  S(14 

2:{  L.  .1.  C.  V.  UK) 

IS.Iur.  111!) 

7  Hill.  2!)2 

1!)  Wend.  ;{2!)    . 

IHeisk.  41 


IS,-..-.   212. 
i,s(;i)   k;. 

1S7S    ,".0.  212. 


Is.Vt  2:{!). 

i>(;2  17. 

I. Si!)  ii:{. 

I.S4!)  2.-). 

I.S7I  ,v..  100.  111.  2-2;i. 

■s7;i  •■)■).  100.  111.  111. 

!2.">,  22;i. 

l,s(l!l  .".!!. 

i,s7i;  .").■). 

i.s.-,s  i.-2:i:i. 

l.stil  ,■.,-..  12."). 

l.sc.t;  ."),"..  1-2."). 

is(;7  I.'). 

l.s,-.7  11(1. 

IS.-.C  lis.  11!). 

ISC!)  4:i. 

IS47  til. 

IS2S  7.  !l. 

ISOO  17.  14(1,  I.S."). 

1S7S  -21).  1,S4,  24S. 

1S,".0  -21."). 

1S72  ;240. 

1S22  -20. 

is.-,i  -2.-).  2:n. 


isi;i   .-..-).  IC.I 
is;{s   k;.-). 
1S70  i:{. 


TAHLK  <)1'  CASKS  CITKI). 


XX  XIX 


N'liiiU's  of  CUSPS. 


Where  reported. 


"WlKMl 

(le- 
eided. 


At  what  seetioiiB 
eiled. 


lloll.  r,i;i    . 

S  'I'aiiul.  Ill 
2  .Monre.  IS 


••^inith  V.  Iloriic      ... 

V.   New  ll;i\t'ii  ,Vr.  K.  (  'n. 
V.  New  \  (irU  <  \'ii'.   !{.  ( 'ci 

V.  New  Yuri;  Cent.  1{,  ( 'o 

V.  Xorlii  ( 'MriiliiiM  |{.  ( '<>. 
V.  I'icrcc 

V.  Sllcplli'Ki 

V.  \Vliiiiii:iii 
Smyrl  v.  Niolun 
Si'i'ler  V.  Ail.nii-    \'.\.  (  'd.     . 

I  tciii.  1..  .1 
Soimiet  V.  N;iii(i:i;il  Kx.  <'(i.  .  iKi  UmI'I  .  'JS 

Siiiitii   v'ic.    Al;il>;niiii     li.    <'ii.    \. 

ileiilfiii .'.J   Ala.  COii 


ISIS    !».  -.'.").  '!{>.  S"),  i)9. 


.  1-J  Allrii.  .-.;{i     . 

isdCi 

II.  IC. 

. -J'.i  l!:nl..  i:{2       . 

1S.-.!I 

.v..  i;).-..  17!),  217, 
22(1. 

.  21  \.  V.222       . 

ls,;2 

.M.  7"..  S2,  l()(i. 
12S.  I7:t.  217. 

.  (M  N.  ('.  2:!.")       . 

1S7(> 

.")(),  24S. 

.  !  !,;..  ;;i'.i   . 

ls;i!i 

1. 

.  Aiii>.  (HI  siiip.  ;'>si    . 

17!i,-) 

Id.-.. 

. ;.;  M...  :;.V2 

IS.Vi 

;")U.  217. 

.  2  P.;ul.'\.   121       . 

ls.;i 

."). 

.  lilt  M(..  ;!7() 

1S7(! 

.■)(!.  102.  !i)S. 

1  r.'Mi.  I..  .1.  ITS) 

.(;(i  n:\v\  .  2SI 

IS7:', 

.M.   102. 

Soiitii  i<;c.  Alntr  :ii:i  K.Cu.  v.llcii- 

lejii 

.Soiltlicdie's  ( ':i-i'   . 

Suiitlierii    Mx.  <'".  \'.  Annslcad 

V.  IJiu'iu'-; 

v.  t  ':i|icrl(iii 

\ .  I  )i\(>ii 
V.  liiiiiiiiciiil 
\ .  Modii  . 
V.  Newliy 


V.  Sli.'a    . 

V.  I  'r(|uliiir! 

V.  \^'(Ullal'k 
Sdiitlnvt-'.crii  ]\.  < '".  V.  Weill) 
SpeiU'e  V.  ( 'lii'ilv,  ivk 


."i!i  Ala.  ;ii;s 

I  !ki|i.  ."1  . 
.'ill  Ala.  :!.MI 
:i''i  (;a.  ."'.12 

II  Ala.  !((1 
II   All.  Ids 

ill  r.  S.  .M'.i 
.".I  MK>.  .V.r, 
;!;•  Mi-^s.  s2;.' 
:i(!  (;a.  dli.". 


:!>^  <;a.  .";;i 

:<2  (;a.  1  12 

I  Ilei>k.  2.M;        . 
IS   Ala.  .")>.-. 
Id  (^  l>.  .".17 

II  .Mir.  S72 
Id  L.  .[.  (.}.  H.  :\r.) 

Siii'iicer  V,  DaL'u'ct;        ■         •         .2Vl.'.i2 
Spey  r  V.  'I'lie'  Mary    IJelle    Koh- 

orts     .         .         .         .         .         .2  Sawy.  I 

Spiiietle  V.  Alia-  Slcaiiisliiit  ( 'n.  .  11  lliiii.  IdO 
Sin-owl  V.  Keliar    .         .         .         .  4  Slew.  iV  I'.  :tS2 

lis  M.i^-s.  2:{'.i 


is7r> 


.i  is7i; 

.1  iddi 

.|  is7;i 

.i  lsd7 

.\  1S7() 

.'  1S7(I 

.;  is7d 

.1  1S77 

.1  ISdi! 

.  lsd7 

.'  iMiS 

:•  Is74 

.'.  1S7(I 

.;  1S72 

.)  1S47 


Id.  2;$.  :;o.   122, 
i    17.").  2r)(>. 

:!d. 
2."). 

:{•).  224. 

:!7. 

:?().  120. 

2(».  ;ut.   '.>;!.  i.ks. 

isid. 
2!i.  ii;{. 

4:1.  121). 

i!i.  ir.o.  212. 
1.  :{7.  sd.  :i."),  112, 
2;;:i.  241). 

241). 

;;7.  24d. 
d2.  12.*). 
1. 
id.">. 


ts2;^   •■>■':.  Id^. 


Sjirowl  V.  Keliar    . 

.'-iiliilri' V.  New  York  ( 'eiii.  I{.  ( 'o 

.Sjailliecker  v.  <  'oiiilis    . 

Slar  of  Hope.  The 


;-iiar  oi  i  lope.    i  iie 
Sti'aiiihoal  Co.  V.  Hiisoii 
Sle.liiiaii  V.  We-leni  4'r.ins)i.  ('( 
Steel  V.  Stall'  Line  Sleaiiilioal  ( 'i 
Steele  v.  'Tow  iiseiid 


1S71 

1S7S 

1S2X 

_ lSd7 

!i  Kiel).  (S.  ('.)  i!i;t  .    isr.:; 
1S7;; 

1S24 

.    isdd 


17  Wail,  tir.l 


Star  of  Hope.  Till 

O-  V-  ll:woli  ,  .   , 

IS  Bail).  ii7 

:t7  I,.  T.  (N.  s.)  :(;i;} 

I   \hi.  Sei.  C:\-.  201    .     ISdl 
;i7Aia.2l7  ; 

Steers  V.  Liverpool  Slpaiiwhil)  Co  •">7  N.  \'.  1  .         .    IS74 

Sleiinvejj  V.  ICrie  \e.  I{.  Co.         .  IH  N.  Y.  12;>       .         .     lS7ll 
Slepiieiis  i^e.  'I'rail-.  (   o.  v.'rileli-  ; 

eniiaii ;i.;  N  .  .1.  (Law  )  .")4:i  .    ISdl) 


211.  ld.">. 
.v.,  1  ;<.-).  201. 
.'i,  S. 

Id.  122. 2:i;5. 
111.  lo'.i.  2;{;i. 

211.  ld.">. 

.*).  di.  Id."). 

:>:>.  I7d. 

2")d. 

;ii).  102.  10!).  i;{s, 

I.".;).    1S4.    249. 

2.".0. 
,"m.  Kid.  PH.  UH. 

221!.  2:'2. 

:,:..  102.  v,\:>. 


xl 


TABLE  OF  CASES  C'lTEb. 


Nnme.H  of  ciihcs. 


M'licrc  rcporU^d. 


Stcwarl  V.  London  i'  Xoilliwc-^t- 

cin  J{.  Co -2  11.  \  i'.  lis:.     . 

Sli'\v;irl  \.  ;\I('i'('Ii;uil"-^  Dis.'IVan-. 

I'o 17  |n>\;!.  ^-I'.i 

Slilrs  V.  Davis       .        •        .        .1  iJlacl,.  |(II 
Slin-on  V.  X.  \\  Y.  rk  Ccni.  H.  (.'o  ;i_'  \.  V.  .•..!:;      . 

Storlxlcn  V.  Kiev  .        .         .        .1  (Jili.  idi; 
.Slodilanl  v.  Lon;;-  Island  li.  Co.  .  .')  Sainii.  ISO 
StoKi's  V.  Sallonstall      .         .         .  i;;  I'c.  isi 
Slmliii  V.  Dciroi,  t'lc.  J{.  Co.        .  .':>  \Vis.  1:1.; 
V.  i)c!i(iil  ,Vr.  n.  Co.         .  :.M  W;..  :):.l 
Small  V.  iJi'itish  ac  Sicani  Xaw 

<-"o :;:;  L.  T.  (S.  S.)  l'.")? 

Hlurp'on  v.  M.  I.iiui>  I'lc.  J{.  Ct..  li,)  M,.  ,)(;!» 
.Slnii;.'ss  V. 'i'lu- Coiniii)ins    .         . -Jii  .Mn. -j;;!) 
Snlii\an  v.  'rii<intp-oii  .        .        .  Dii  M,,.-,.  l'.")1) 
Snltaiia. 'Ihc  V.  Chapman     .         .  .">  W  is.  I,")| 
iSiuiiici-laiiil  V.  )\'c-ic(iit         .         .  "J  Swi'cnv.  2il(» 

lit  ilow.'i'r.  )(;< 
Sinii,  rlai:;l  v.  Civai    \\'r-:cin    R. 

*'<> 7  r.  c.  c.  p.  ion 

Swcfi  V.  .'jarniv    ....  •.■:;  .\.  y.  :;;;,-, 
SwiiiilJ.-i- V.  IHiiiard      .        .        .  i' jjifii.  (S.  C.)  "iSO   ! 


^\'"'"    At  what  si'H; 
I    tic-  .,    , 

J  ciilctl.  !  f'f'l- 


is(;)    i,s7. 

1S77    Id.  111'.  111.  L'di. 

I  Ml  I    i7.  is. 

\>ti')    .".">.   77).   Is,"),   i^.i. 

■2->(K 

I  ■'Hi  2l."i. 

Is.', J  .;,•>. 

].>;;:)  2i:i. 

Isiis  :.).;(). 

IS(17  <u.  ]>)-2.  III,. 

I>77  ">(i.  2(lL>. 

|,-..'.i;  ,".il.  l!is. 

I'-'is  Id.  •_';;(;.  212. 

1  ••.'<';  <!7.  id:;. 

)^7d  :>:>.  107.  iM'.. 


isiii    I.  :,:<.  -i;'.:!. 
■  ■^ii;    di.  7'i.   KM.    i7d. 
2V.K 


Til 


k  \  I 


Tall.Dtl  V.  Mcivliimi's  I>is.  'i'l-ans, 

,,/'', li  iou:i.  :i!7       . 

lan!)niad  v.  I'acilic   Sicani  .\av. 

„/''.■■      •      .  •,       •        •        •         ■■-''  L.  i".  .X.  S.)  7(tl 
Ja.vior  V.  Litiio  U-.n-k  dr.  li.  (  ;,.  :i.i  Ark.  ;i!i:; 
\'.  Liv('i|i(,ol  Sir.  .Stcain- 

■''•"1'  <-' :!d  I..  '!'.  (S.  s.j  711 

,1..  I.',  .'i-i.  v..  .-.Id 
1^:!  I..  •/'.  (.>.  H.  -JO.-. 
2i'  W.  n.  7.-)2 
:i:i  lii.l.  2d  . 

>    JJiMI.     i>i| 

7)  Iti'll.  .")l)| 
III  Ala.  .^lO 
I  lii'u.  .•)ii;{ 
•-'  .Sawv.  1i> 
i'avcis.  M 
I.,  n.  ;  A'hn.  lid 
■-';;  I..  'J'.  (\.  s.)   ,s;;s 
,,.,       f  ,,       .      ,  Jl  1-  'i.  Adni.  17 

Cit\  of  llarltc.nl  v.Tlicl'iiit  II  IJlatrhf.  •".)(( 
Noiwicli  .         .1  ];,.„_  ^7, 

1  JJcii.  S!) 
t,  u     ,  I'-i  Hen.  ')('>:, 

(oh.nl...r^      .•..'!  J{1:,H<.  17(1 
to  .,„H  L.Mlyaid    ,        .         .  ,  S|dau„...  5:i() 
f,"'"'"'"'         •        •        .         .;!J{latHif.,VJl 
,V"'''";i-  •         •         ■         .ISawv.;i7n 

^:"'^l",^^"-^      •        •        .        . :?  SavvV.  ,-,;is 
DavuKv  Carol! n."  .        .        . .-,  Klai'.hf. -,;,; 


Tliay.'i  V.  .St.  l.,,iiis  ^'vr.  ll.{\>. 
'I'll  •  .\ni' rica 

Aii.oincita  C. 

Belfast  V.  15,,,,,,      . 

Bcllona  .         .        ; 

Calilofnia 

Casco 

Clias(.'a    .        .        ■        ■ 


ls7.".  !".  -JU. 

IS7-  2:.. 

1-77  ;i.  11)2. 

''<•'',  ii;;;.  201. 


2:;d. 


.    !>-i;i 
.    Is7d 

111). 
21).  is:{. 

.    1^72 

21).  id.-.. 

IS), 

.    iM;7 

i::. 

.     1>71 

2:1.  l:!s. 

207. 

.       |N7i 

21 ).  ISO. 

21)7. 

.    IS  12 

idrt.  2oii 

Is7.-. 

I.-.:!.  Id.-) 

.  27.1 

IS7:! 

Hi). 

I>i7ii 

2!). 

isdi; 

N!). 

ls(;;( 

1(17).  17(i 

ISdl 

11. 

ISdO 

•>•) 

IS.'id 

2:1.  207. 

IS77 

2!).  ](',:,. 

1S7.-, 

2:1,  11;.-). 

lsi;.-i 

2!).  IS-I. 

Tl 

'11 
T 
'1' 


TAIJLK  OF  CASES  CITKD. 


Xli 


la/v 


Njinics  <if  (  uses. 

Wlicic  i('iii>ilccl. 

Whni 
(I.'- 

At  wluit  st'(  '■ 
ciUMl 

2!i.  isi.  2-1-;. 

If.llS 

TliclK'llii       .... 

.  1  lien.  ;i|.") 

lS7i) 

Kilwiii      .... 

.  1   ^|irii<.','ii«'.  177 

IS,-,;) 

d.  211.  111.  i 

)-> . 

I'linily  V.  ( 'anicy     . 

.')  Ka-.  'il.') 

ISiil 

tl.  102.  21-<. 

lOiimia  .liiliiisoii 

1  SpratiMii'.  .")27 

ISi'.l) 

2!).  k;:-.  2-!.-. 

Ktlirl        .... 

:.  r,(Mi.l.-.l 

ls7i 

2!t.  Id.".. 

ravciiilc 

•J  Mi-.-.  .•)02 

IS71 

2;t.  !■•;.. 

Fl-('C(lulll 

(..  K. ;'.  p.  <:.  rM 

L'i  1..  T.  (X.S.J  ir,L 

1S71 

!.■);{.  id:>.i'(). 

217. 

(J'. Id  IImiiI(  )• 

liialclif  I'c  H.  :!(H) 

ls;;j 

21).  1  (;.'>. 

ll.'Iciif     .... 

n.  \-  L.  !■_•!) 

isiii; 

:si.  2 IS. 

Iliiiilrc^s 

Davi'is.  S'> 

ISKI 

•}•. 

1  ll\  illi'ililc 

1   Lowell,  -i^.")     . 

isi;s 

2;i.  is|.  2  Is. 

2.-,d. 

•-al..'lla 

s  Hell.  I:;:i 

!S7.-. 

21).  11).-,.  Id;,. 

.iiiiii:\t:i   j'almi 

1  Bi>-.  1.-. 

ls:.2 

21).  ]d.->.  21S. 

KrcikllK 

1  V,\<>  .".-'•J  . 

Iso; 

21t.  Id.-,.  2  IS. 

l.adv  rikr 

:;  Bi-s.  ill 

iMili 

2;i.  id.-.  248. 

I.i'NillUlMIl 

(;iio\\.  :{n 

ISIS 

2'.  ' 

l.ivi-  V.-iiikcc 

1  \h-.uW.  12(1      . 

ISfls 

■il).  217. 

Ma/i'i-ic  MamiiiMinl 

1  Wall.'  i:;:. 

iSC;) 

i.  12. 

Maralln-ii 

Ill  1,.  !'.  (X.  s.)  Ill;; 

2.-|d. 

May  <_*ii(MMi 

1  Nt'wii.  t(;r> 

1  s.-.  1 

2'i.  SS. 

Mil'clii-    .... 

.MJlaiclif. :!:!.")    . 

iSiir, 

■.';'.  Id.-,. 

Mih\aiiki'(' ''.('lie      . 

_>  n\s-.  ]'.)7 

isdit 

21).  I. :.. 

Mchavk 

s  AVa  11.  !.■>;'. 

isii-; 

d.  211.  Id.-,. 

.Mnllii'   Mohl.T 

:'  J'.i-^  .Vi.". 

1S71 

2'i.  Id.-..  2  IS. 

>!nHir    .Mulil.T 

■.:i  Wall.  :.':;n      . 

1S71 

Id.-.. 

.\t'\vai-i.  .... 

1  IJiat.-iif.  lilt!   . 

Isk; 

■21).  Id.-.. 

Xt'W  .Icivcy     . 

Olcott.i  i  1. 

isir. 

Id.-,,  2Dd. 

.\»'\v  ^\■u|■|(l  \.  Kiiii;' 

1<1  llow  .    \i\:i 

is.-,:t 

21).  K'.l).  21.-.. 

220. 

\iaj;:i'.a  \ .  ( 'ordiv-  . 

•il  How.  •; 

IS,-,-; 

1.    21).    Ill), 
2  IS.  2.-,d. 

Id.-). 

( '('('an  W.iVc    . 

:;  iJi-s.  ;;i7. 

1S72 

21).  Id.->.  2  IS. 

■>\\yv<     .... 

;i  i?.'M.  I  IS. 

ISii!) 

21).  I>i).  IS!. 

2is. 

<iiini-i     .... 

1  u.'ii.  i:!i. 

lsr,7 

17. 

<  )(|l|C|lll    ■. 

:;s  L.  T.  (N.S.)  l.M 

2.-,(!. 

( )iiilaiiiiu(' 

1    S;iwv.  17l! 

!s7ii 

21).   ISO.  181 

2IS. 

I'acilic     .... 

1   l-<-:u\y.  17 

isci 

21).  12:i.  227. 

I'aliia       .... 

!..  li.  :;  .\din.  IliC. 

:!!  i..  l\  (N.  S.)  s|;i 

is7i 

Id.-,. 

I'rrir;-!'     .... 

>  i'cii.  IKil. 

IS7.-. 

21).  ISl.  2 IS. 

•  '(rllSllll'llill        . 

11  Wail.  (is2 

isi;;) 

21).  H"..-). 

!'((ii-iiioiilli     . 

2  Bis-.  ,-)t;  . 

f  isds 

Id.-). 

|{i'h('i-ca  .          .          •          . 

1  Wall.  ISS 

1  is:n 

2;i.  n;.-,. 

Ki'i'sidf  .... 

•J  Sum.  .-)l)7 

is;{7 

21).  Id.-,.  2.-)(;. 

!{(>cl\<'l     .... 

1  i;i-.-. ;!:.!. 

ISdd 

21).  Id.-..  248, 

Siiiitcf     .... 

:>.  n<'i\.  .-.11). 

isds 

21).  120. 

Sanlfc     .... 

7  Blalclif.  ISO    . 

1870 

148. 

Star  tif  ildpc  . 

17  Wall.  i;.-)l       . 

187:? 

21).  Id.-,. 

Snilana  \.  ( 'lia|iiiiaii 

:>  Wis.  i.vL 

is.'jd 

(i7.  102. 

Vivi.l       .... 

■1  Ben.  Itll). 

]S7() 

21).  24S. 

Waiiala   .... 

11.".  r.  s.  mill 

1S77 

2.-)d. 

Wailiaii  .... 

i;U)p.  Attv.  (Ji'li.ll! 

ISdl) 

21).  ld.->. 

\N'isciiiisin  V.  Vuiiii<r 

:t  (;.  (Jivcm-.  2i)S 

:  is.-,i 

40.  lid. 

Tliitnias  V.  Hikkhi  A:c.  K.  Co 

10  Mi'tr.  172       . 

;  ISA') 

;!. 

V.  'I'lic  .M(iriiiii,<j;»il()ry 

i;i  i,a.  .\iiii.  2(;!i 

■'  is.-,s 

i;!.  ISI.  218. 

Thoroufdod  v.  Marsh     '. 

1  (iow.  N.  1*.  ('.  lO.J 

1S1!» 

d.  !);■>. 

Tliorp  V.  II:iiiiiiiniiil 

12  Wall.  lOs       . 

1S7() 

14!). 

Tlu-ifi  V.  Vdiilc      . 

I..  I!.  2  r.  1'.  D.  i:)2. 

'■  1S77 

184. 

WBom 


i. 


.-#3 


xlu 


TAULK  OF  CASKS  GITKD. 


)|: 


Naiiu's  of  cases. 


AVlipri-  reported. 


Wlieu 

(Ic- 

eideil. 


At  what  sections 
cited. 


II 


!  J 


I' 


isrr  "m.  im>. 

171S    I'd. 

isd-i   Ki. 

isd!)   21-J. 

ISII    lM. 

187(1    --'It.  If!.").  iM5.  lMS. 

_  :.':.7. 

7. 


178, 


<«ii 


Tiorncy  v.  X.  Y.  Cent..:  Co       .'10  Hiiii.  TM)       . 

'I'icliliiniie  V.  White      .         .         .1  .sir;iii;j;e.  11.")  . 

Tirroll  v.  Gaije      .        .        .        .4  Alien.  21.". 

Toledo  i\je.  1{.  Co.  v.  Meniinaii  J'fl  111.  I2:i  . 

Tower  V.   (  Ilea  i^e  K.  Co     .         .  7  Hill.  !7    . 

'i'ransportal ion  Co.  V.  Downer    .ill  \\'all.  12!) 

j 

Trent  Xav.  Co.  v.  Wood      .        .1  1)omi>1.  2s7     . 

:i  K«i..'  IIU. 

Tiickertnan   \.    Sieiiliens    ^c 

Trans.  Co :t2  X.  J.  (I.aw.)  ;{2I.'  18(!7  '.")!.  10."). 

Tn.-rirle  V.  SI.  I.oiiis  \c.  ]{.  Co      .!(12  Mo.  (2."i.         .         .    187{;    .")().  2.')4. 
Tn'rner  V.  The  Hl.u'k  Warrior      .  1  MeAll.  ISl      .         .'  18,")(I    2!».  2)s. 
Tnrn(>y  V.  Wilson.        .        .         .  7  Yer^r.  ;il(t       .         .,'  is;).")    (i2.  Id.").  2-18. 
'I'welve  llnndred  A-e.  I'ipes  .        .  :>  Ken.  402.        .         .;  1S71    2!). 
Tyler  V.  Wesiirn  L'nion  Tel.  Co.  CI)  111.  421  .        .        .'  1871   ';{s. 
Tyly  V.  Morri^'i'     .        .        .        .li!  Carih.  is."»      .        .    l(l!)Ii   20.  si;. 
Tysen  V.  Moore     .        .        .        ..">(!  Barb.  1 12      .        .i  1870   .")."(.](;,-..  24S. 


2(!  Ohio  St.  .")!),-). 


I'nion  Ex.  Co.  v.  Graham    . 
I'nion  .Mnl.    Ins.  Co.  v.  Indian- 

aiiolis  ite.  K.  Co        .        .         .1]  Disnev.  ISO    . 
I'liiled  .states  Ex.  (.'o.  v.  lJaeli-| 

in.i" 2Cin.  2.")1  . 

I'nited  States  Ex.  Co.  v.  IJaeh- 

i":in 2S  Oiiio  Si.  1(1. 

Cnited  States  Ex.  Co.  v.  Haines,  v,-;  (||.  j;);  . 
V.  jr.irris  ..")!  Ind.  127 
V.  Keefer.  ."i!i  Ind.  2ii;! 
V.  Hnsh    .2!  hill.  I0;{ 


Vandersliee  \-.  The  Snj)erior        .'!)  I'm.  E.  ,r    IK! 
^■an  Hern  v.  Taylor      .        .         .7  IJoh.  201. 
^  an  Horn  v.  Taylor      .        .         .2  I.a.  Ann.  .".87 
Van  Santvoord  v.  St.  .rolin  .         .  (I  Hill.  l.-,7'. 
Van  Sehaaek  v.  Xorthern  Trans. 


!  Hiss.  ;i!)|    • 
Crahhe.  40.". 


< '» 
Van  .Syekel  V.  The  Kwin;i 
Van  Xatta  v.  .Mnl.  See.  Ins.  (  :,  .2  siuidf.  -I!i(') 
Van  Winkle  v.  Adams  Ex.  Co 

V.  i:.  S.  Mail  Co 
Varble  v.  iJi^le,-   . 
Vau<j:han  v.  (i:t()  Casks  . 
Veriier  v.  S\veit:;er 
Verrall  v.  Hohin.son      . 


.;  187n  :57.  24!t. 

.|  ]8.".7  ".7,  ir.o.  Id,-.  I7d. 

I  i 

.|  1872  ")7.  210. 

.  187.')  .")7.  i:{;!.  2!8. 

.  187:5  :2;{d.  24  o. 

.(  1S7.".  :!!).  120.  2!;!. 

.  1877  ;(o.  Idl. 

.  isd.-.  ;iii.  2;iii. 


.".!). 

.  1811  i;!.  Id,-,. 
.1  1817  i:!.  k;.".. 
.i  184;{  ]■!:>.  2;i8. 

.1  1872  '20.  li);{.  248. 


.;t  i{<iM. .".!). 

..■)7  Marl..  122      . 

.11  Cent.  E.  .J.  l.-,;{ 

.  7  Hen.  .".Oil. 

.  ;I2  I 'a.  St.  208    . 

.  Tyrw.  lOdO 
t  I)o\vI.  1'.  C.  242 
:<'romp.  M.i't  J{.4i)r)l 


1810  20.  k;."). 

181i)  2,-).".. 

I8di  .-.-),  :i;;. 

1802  17. 

1870  >\. 

1S7I  2!l.  180.  1K4. 

1S.-.8  1.  .".It.  io8.2:j;t.247 

is;!.",  17. 


Vickshnrjr  &e.  ]{.  Co.  v.  ]{m<.-s. 

''"'/'.  •.      •      .■        .        .    "   .  Id  Miss.  l,-,8 
^  irfrmia^e.  ]{.  Co.  v.  Sav.Ms      .  2d  (Jratt.  :|-'8 
\  It rihed  ite.  Sewer  IMi.es     .         .  .'i  Hen.  402. 

,-   •,   r,„  "  Hlalchf.274 

^'^'^Mlif I  H,.,,.  ;{M. 


.  1872  10. 

.  187.-,  (!,-,.  70. 

.  1S71  181. 

.  1877  2.-)d. 

.  1870  211.  248. 


N'liincs  of  ciisi's. 


TAIU.K  or  CASKS  CITKO. 
Where  reported. 


xliii 


When  I  At  whiit  sections 

ClO* 

clUed.  I  citeU. 


VroomiiM  V.  Am.  t'ic.  K\.  Co 


WmIiI  v.  Holt. 
Wiilker  V.  .l;icks(Pii 
V.  Skipwitli 
V.  'I"i':iiis|i.  ( '(I  . 
V.  York  i**:!'.  H.  ( '» 
NViilkici'  V.  ('layloii 

V.  Miiilii'ws     . 
V.  Sanders 
V.  N"h;ms  . 
Wiilpole  V.  Kriilfffs 
Walstoii  \ .  Myers  . 
Wanata.  "riic." 
Warden  v.  (Jreer 


.'.-.  \.  Y.  (S.  (;.)  22 
2  Hull.  r)l2 


.  2(i  Wis.  70:? 
.  10  M.i^  W.  lOl 
.Meii-s.  .->()2. 
.  :',  Wall.  I.V). 
.2  K.  .>;;  IJ.  7.".0 

.12  (;a.  ii:i. 
. :'.',)  (ia.  (;17. 
.  12  (Ja.  ISC. 
.   I   151:iekf.   2(10 

.  .■)  I?la(  kf.  222 
.  '> .Imies.  171 
.  ll.'i  r.  S.  COO 
.  C.  Walls.  121 


1S74 


14G. 


Warliiis  V.  Howerv  Saviiies  irk  .  21  N.  V.  ."ilH 


1570  :(;7.  117.  2;!(>. 
lS-12  DO. 

isits  (12. 

ISC.-)  1-10. 
ls.-):{   10;$. 

1571  1. 

isco  :{7.  so.  no. 

1S71  ;{7.  1S7. 

is;f7  4. 

is:5o  .■).  :jo.  20«. 
ls.-)7    1. 

IS77  :2.5(i. 

is:{7   14.  .v.),  11(1. 

isiio  :io,->. 


Watliaii.  'I'lie 

Walkiiisuii  V.  I.aii^iliioii 

Wayiand  v.  Mosehy 

Wayne  v.  Tlu!  (ieni'ial  I'ike. 

WeOli  V.  Railway  Co     . 

Weir  V.  Kxjiress  ( 'o 

Weleli  V.  Ho<lon  Ac.  U.  <  '((  . 


i:!(M..  Atlv.CJen.  110    ISCO    21t.  KC). 


s.lolins.  21:5 
.-)  Ala.  i;io. 
IC  Oliio.  121 
2  ;  W.  U.  70 
.-)  I'liila.  :!.■).-) 
II  ConM.:i:{:i 


V.  IMllslinifili  \c.  Iv.  Co    .  10  Ohio  Si.  ().■) 
Wells  V.  New  York  Cent.  K.  Co  .  2C  Uarli.  ("ill 

.24  .\.  V.  ISI 


V.  Steam  Nav.  <  'o 


. 2  N.  Y.  20 1 
.  S  N.  Y.  ;!7.-) 


Wiiilwortli  V.  The  Itealm     .         .  IC  l.a.  .\.nn.  IS  . 
Weriheimei-  v.    reiiii-vl\ ania  l{.| 
Co        .  .  .         '.  .  .! 

West  V.  'i"h<-  IJeilin        .         .         .,:t  Iowa.  .-);?2 

W.  steotl  V.  Kar-^o C:{l{arl).  :t4'.»      . 

C  Lans.  lUO 
.  (11  \.  Y.  .■|I2      . 

Western  Trans.  Co.  v.  N.'whall    .'24  111.  4C»1  . 

I'nion  T<'1.  Co.  V.  Carew  1.")  Mii  h.  .-)2.-) 

V.  (iraham  1  Col.  2:iO  . 
I'ie.  K.  Co.  V.  McKlwee   .  (1  lleisk.  20S 
Wevhind  V.  Klkins        .        .        .  Holt.  \.  I*.  227. 

1  Stark.  272 
V,  et/.ell  V.  Dinsmore     .         .         .ir)4  ^\.  Y.  40ii      . 
White  V.  (Jival  Western  i{.  Co     .2  ^.  1$.  (N.  S.)  7 

,-.  W.  j{.  4SS 
V.  The  Marv  Ann        .         .  tl  Cal.  4(;2  . 
V.  Van  Kirk         .         .         .  2.")  IJaih.  Ki 
Whitesell  V.  Crane         .         .         .  S  W.  iS;  S.  :iCO 
WhilL'sides  V.  Kus-ell    .         .         .sW.iVS.  41 

V.  Thinlkill.         .         .12  S.  A  M.  .-)00 
Whitmore  v.  l{owman  .         .         .1  (;.(ireene.  14S 
Will.v  V.  West  Cornwall  K.  C<.    .  2  II.  i*;:  N.  707    . 


.  isii  1:1. 

.  is4;<  :{o.  112. 11:$ 

.!  1S47  .')7.  12.-). 

.'  1S77  ii:'.s. 

.  l!(14  '.^O.  120. 

.  is7i  ;m.  70. 

.;  is,->o  14.  ic.  .-)7.  i:{7. 

.1  is.-)S  :7o,  12s.  220. 

.  1SC2  2S.  .'),->.  7.->.  SI.  KK), 

I  '     12s.  15(1.  220. 

■  i  1S40  ll. 

.'  IS.-)!}  {.-).->.  n;5. 1:5.").  1S7, 

I  ■     220.  2()0. 

.  ISCl  i4:{,  207. 


ISSO 
1S.-)C 


2.)7. 


4.  40.  1(1.'),  ISO. 

1S72  I.-).-).  io;{.  i:w.  !:'>•'>. 
I    i:{s. 

1,S7.-)  I.-).-).  103.  120.  1:!:$, 
KIS. 
,    ISCO    lis.  SS,  101.   KI5, 
I  !     24ti. 

.     1S(17    1.47. 

.  1S71  ;{;{. 

.    1S71    2:1s.  240. 

.'•  ISlC    242. 

I  i 

.'  1S7:{  .").-).  i.-)S. 
.'  is.-)7    lis.  l.-)l. 

.!  is.-)C  1. 

.1  is.-)C  |.-).-).  102, 11:?. 

.'   1S4.-)  l0!l. 

.■  1S44    no.  1  (!.-).  10s.  240. 

.    1S40    40.  IC.-). 

.   is.-):i  40. 

.    is.-.s  |2:{8.  2:19. 


:'.-# 


Hi 


I 

1 1 


xliv 


TAItLE  OF  CASKS  (  ITKD. 


Ximios  of  coses. 


Wlioro  rcportfcl. 


"l',l^"  I  '^'  wimt  sect  ions 


.  1S77     U).  III. 

.'  IS  10  :.(;.  !(;.■). 

•'  isKi  ;{|.  l.'iJ. 

.:  is;it!  -'15. 

.1  is7;{  !i). 

J  isi;!    1  •_)<). 

.1  IS7-'   (i,-..  loi;,  2IJ. 

J  ISII    ;!),-.. 

.1  IS.M     ']{',. 


Wildt!  V.  Mcrcli.  Dis.  TiJiiis.  Co  .  17  lowii.  •-'72      . 

!7  Iowa.  •_M7 

AVilliains  V.  IJraiisnn     .         .  .1  .Miirplicy.  117. 

?S^:           V.  (Jraiil.         .         .  .  M  'oiiri.  IS7 

■'           V.  Tiivlor        .         .  .  ;  Tort.  SM 

Willis  V.  (iiMii(i  'rnmk  U.  Co  .  vd  Me.  ISS. 

U'ilsdii  V.  r.rcll      .        .         .  .  II  .M.  i\c  \V.  Il;{ 

V.  Clicsiiicakc  iScc.  I{.  ('(1.  L'l  (Jrall.  li.VI      . 

V.  Ficfiiian       .        .  .  ;i  ('aiii|).  :>-27 

V.  Ilaiiiiltoii       .         .  .1  Ohio  St.  7Jl'   . 

V.  York  Xr.  I?.  Co    .  .  Is  Kiiir.  I,.  ^  Kij..V)7i   IS,">I    •2;',0 

^Viltoii  V.  Ailanlic  Koyal  Mall  St.  '                           |             ' 

X.iv.  C.)      .         .      '  .         .  .  Id  C.  I!.  N.  S.  !,• 

UMiiklicld  V.  I'ackini;i<in      .  .  •.'  ('.  \  I'.  ,'):i;)    . 

Winona  Ac.  K.  Co.  v.   Hlakc  .  jM  l.  S.  |,-'(l 

Wise  V.  <;ival  Western  K.  Co  .  I  11.  iV  \.  (ill      . 

Wisconsin.  'Ilic  v.  Yoiuix    .  .:!(;.  (irccnc.  -JOS 

Will)"ck  V.  Ilolianil      .'      .  .  .V>  l!ail>.  1 1;!      . 

Wolf  V.  AiMcrican  i';\.  Co     .  .  i:!  Mo.    luM 
V.  Wcsiciii  I'nion  Tcj.  Co  .  (ii*  |'a.  si.  s;i 

V-  Myers        .        .        .  .  :i  Saniil.  7 . 

Wooden  V.  Austin.        .         .  ..-,1  Haili.  !i. 

WoodrntT  V.  Shcrrai'd  .         .  .  li  linn.  .•!-.':i 

^N'orlli  \ .  Kdninniis       .         .  .  ,V_'  IJaih.  Id 

Wri-lit  V.  (;atT       .         .         .  .  t;  |,hI.  lie. 

^\yld  V.  I'ickl'ofd  .        .        .  .  s  M.  \   w.  1 1;{ 


isdl  idi;. 

1S-J7  !i.-,.  2211. 

IS7(;  ll. 

IS.")(!  ;I|S. 

I'^">7  Id.  IKi. 

is7d  :,:,,  2;{(;.  212. 

i.^iiii  .•.().  17s. 

isd'.i  .■.:(. 

I>i|ll  .").'..  1(12.  ill!. 

l>^t»>  .v..  I, •;,■.. 

1S7(I  ,V..  107. 

IStiS  I. 

!>■'")">  ;(!).  IJs. 

i^^^ii  '2.'>.  !:;;;.  i,-is. 


Yatc  V.  Willan       .         .         .         .2  Kast.  I2S 
York  <'o.  V.  Central  liailroad       .  ;1  w'ali"  lt~)7 

York    Xewcastle   ,*,c.    U.    Co.    v.' 

^.*"'''^P lie.  li.  .-.27       . 

lonni,' V.  Western  I'lnon  Tel.  Co. :; I  \.  V.  (S.  C.)  ;t!i(). 


Znii;a:v.  Howland.        .         .         .  5  Dalv.  i;!(l 

V.  Sontli  Eastern  JJ.  Co       .  L.  K.'i  (^.  ij.  -,;{() 


ISOl   !!)|. 

ISti.")    2:1.    7i>.    1::!.    17(1, 


2.17,  2(;d. 


I>i7)l    2.-). 
1.S72  l.V). 


1S7I   :,:,.  1!).-,. 

KS(!!I  1 10(1. 


« 


TAHLr.OF  (ASMS 


PKNIKP.    CKITICISKP.   KKVKUSKI).    OVKIJHII.KK    ANI>    1  (ISTlNCriSIIKI). 


AlllllllS  Kx.  Co.  V.  llaviic: 

1-j  111.  SI)  (isdii). 

AlcXMIIllcr  V.   (il'CCIIC 

:i  Hill.  1)  (ISI-2). 


AmiTJcan  'I'raiis.  ( 'o.  v.  Moore 

'i  Midi.  :<(;s  (is.'.s). 

Austin  V.  Maiicli.  \c.  1{.  Co 
II  Ku'^.  L.  iV:  Kii.  .">()(). 
IC  .liir.  7r.;{  (IS.VJ). 

A  Vina  r  v.  Astor 

ti  Cow.  20(1  (1S2(I). 


Bank  of  Kciitiickv  v.  Adams  Kx.  Co 
1  Cciil.   L.  .»."i:t(i  (isri). 

IJci'k  V.  Kvaiis 

K;  Kasl.  ■_>)). 

:?  Camp.  2()7  (lSl->). 
Bis.-ell  V.  New  York  I'ciit.  li.  Co 

21lJ{arli.  (102  (IS.Vt). 


IJissfll  V.  Xcw  York  Cent.  It.  i'o 
■2'>  X.  Y.  112  (1S(12). 


Blossom  V.  l)o(l(l        .        .        .        .         . 

■i:{  N.  Y.2(ll  (1S7()). 
Blum  y.  Soiiiliciii  I'lilliiiiin  Pahici'  CarCo. 

HCciil.  L.  .1.  .")H1  (1X7(1). 
Bosiwick  V.  Baltimore  iVo.  It.  Co     . 

•I.")  N.  Y.  712  (1S71). 


Crilii'ised  in  this  treatise.  Cai».  \'l. 

!i   12N. 

Reversed  ia  Alexander  v.  (Sreeiie.  7 

Hill.    .••.:!;!    (ISII).     See    Wells    v. 

Steam     Nav.    Co..    2   (.^oinsi.    2i)| 

(IS  I!.). 
See    People    v.   Tvler.    7    Mieli.  Kd. 

21(1  (is;t!t). 
See   2  (Jiceulf.  Kv..  ij  21.").   note. 


Oveirnled    in    .Mien    v.    Si'woll.    2 
Wend.  :i27  (IS2!i):    Sewell  v.  .M- 
len.  (I  Wend.  :?;t(i  (is;{()) ;    MeAr- 
tlmrv. Sears.  21  Wend.  1110  (is:?!)). 
.See  al>n  Hale  v. New. Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co.  I.")  Ci.nii. ."):!',).  .")|.i  (ISi;!). 
Uveirnled   in   Bank  of  Kentiu'kv  v. 
Adams   Ex.  Co.  li;{   C.   S.   171,    I 
Cent.  I...I.  :!.">  (|S7(i). 
Overiiiletl  in  M.ush  v.  Ilorne.  .">  B. 
I      i<:  C.  :i22(lS2(!). 
I 

'  }{eversed    in    Bissell    v.    New   York 
,      Cent.   I{.  Co.  2.")  N.  Y.  112  (IS(;2;. 
i     Oveiriile<l  in  Perkins  v.  New  York 
I      Cent.  U.  Co.  21  N.  Y.  I'.M!  (1S(12). 
Denied   in  Hooper  v.  Wells.  27  Cal. 
I      11(18(11).     See  also  Pierce  V.  .Mil- 
waukee A:e.  It.  Co.  21!  Wis.  :5S7, 
;(lll  (ISdS).    Criticised  in  this  trea- 
tise. Cai).  II.  ij  2S.  VI.  <j   12S.  I\. 
S  220. 
Disiitiiiiiislied    in    Belj^-er   v.    Dins- 

iiKnv.  .">1  N.  Y.  1(1(1  (1S72). 
Critioiseil  in  this  treatise.  Cap.  I.  §  1. 

Distiiifjiiished    In    Hill  v.    Svraciise 
&v.  \i.  Co.  7:«  X.  Y.:(r.i  (is7s). 


M 


xlvi 


CASES  OVERUULKU,  CinTIClSED,  KTC. 


Cii<«'<>.  'I'lx'         .... 

Diiv.'is.  isi  (isrj). 
Cliildsv.  Little  M;iitni  II.  Co     . 

1  ("in.  (Oliio).  1.^0  (IS71). 
("liristciisoii  V.  Amoricnii  Ex.  O) 

1.-)  Minn.  -JTO  (1S7()). 


Cliirlv  V.  l};irn\vcii 

llJ  II. INN.  HI  (IN.-)I). 

Cole  V.  (Joddwiii 

lit  Wend,  -jni  (is:t>i). 


Collcndt'i'  V.  Dinsnioi-c 

(!4  Hiivl).  C):  (lS7;i). 
Ci>lltMid('i'  V.  Dinsmoi'c 

.").■.  N.  Y.  ■>(»)  (i.srH). 
Ccdlins  V.  Hiistdl  \c.  H.  Co       . 

II  Ex.  7!M)  (IS.VI). 
Collins  V.  Hristol  Sir.  \i.  (jo      . 

I  II.  iS:  N.  r.17  (is.-.(i.) 

Coll  V.  IMcMcciicn 

(i  Johns.  Kit). 

.')  Am.  Dec.  JOO  (ISIO). 
Cfiigin  V.  New  York  Cent.  ]t.  Co 

51  N.  Y.iil  (IS72). 
Crosbv  V.  Kiti'li 

i-i  (■  nn.  no  (is:(8). 
Dibble  v.  Morijiin 

1  AVoods.'KK)  (IS7;t). 
Kdwiii'ds  V.  )Vliile  Line  'I'lansit   C( 

101  Miiss.  i:.!)  (IS70). 
Eveih'igli  V.  Sylvester 

2Urev.  17S  (1807). 


Express  Co.  v.  Arinstead 
50AIii.  3r)0  (187:!)- 

Exjiress  Co.  v.  Ciipcrton 
44  Ala.  101  (1S70). 


Express  Co.  v.  Ilavni's 

4-J  111.  8!)  (IS(i(i). 
Ezzell  V.  Eiii^lisli 

(i  I'ort.  ;i'll  (ls;iS). 
E/ell  V.  Miller 

(i  I'orl.  ;{07  (ISliS). 
Fibel  V.  Livin<;stdn 

(U  JJarb.  17!)  (187-2). 
Field  V.  Cldeai;o  i^e.  K.  Co 

71  I11.4r)8  (1S71). 

Fillebrown  v.  (Jrand  Trunk  R.  Co 

o.")  Me.  4 -JO  (1807). 
Fisli  V.  Cbajjnian 

2Ga.  ;J4!)  (1847). 


.    Criticised  in  this  treatise.  Cap.  VMI. 

I     <  -Joo. 

.  See  I'nited  States  Kx.  Co.  v.  iJacli- 
nian.  -J  Ciii.  (Ohio).  -J.'.l  (1872). 

,  Denied  in  Hank  of  Keiitneky  v.  Ad- 
ams   K\.    Co.     I   Cent.   L'.  .1.    t;i() 

I       (1871). 

.See  (iraliMni    \'.   Davis.    I    Ohio   St. 

I     ;{o-j  (i^^.'ii). 

.    See  Meiranlile  Ins.  (  'o.  v.  (  'base.  1 . 
K.  D.Smiib.  ll.">  (I8,-)I)):  WeMi  v. 
ritl>linr;;li  \e.  H.  Co.  10  Obio  St. 
'     C.:..   7i>   (18.V.)):   Swindler  v.  Mil- 
liard.-J  Hicb.  (S.  C.)  280  (IS40). 
.    IJeverscd  in  ( 'ollender  v.  Dinsnnii'e. 

.").->  N.  Y.  200  (I87;i). 
.  '  Critii'ised  In  this  treatise,  Cap.  V .  ;> 

■      II;!. 
.    J{eversed   in  Collins  y.  Mrisiol   \e. 

K.  Co.  I  II.  \  N.  .".17  (  isr.O). 
.  I  ]{eversed  in  Directors  of  liri^tol  I{. 
I     Co.   V.  Collins.  7  II.    I-.  ('as.    |ni 

I       (18.-.8). 
.    Critieiseil  in  Ibis  treatise.  ( 'ap.  1  <■  .">. 


,    ( 'riliciseil  in  tbis  treatise.  ( 'ap.  \'I.  <J 

;     i;!(i. 

,  ;  Criticised  in  ibis  ireali-c  ( 'ap.  \'III. 
S  -00. 
Critici>ei|  in  this  treatise.  ( 'ap.  \'1 1. 

i;  lii."i. 
Crilii'i-ed  in  this  treatise.  Caj).  I.  § 

IS. 
('rilii'ised    in    Tatton    v.     Ma;;i'alb. 
;      Diidi.    '.Vl  (18:{S^     Overrnled    in 
McClenajrban  v.    Hroi'k.  5   Kicb. 
17  (18:>l,i. 
See    Robinson    v.    Merchants    Dis- 
patch 'I'rairs.    ('o..    |.",    Iowa.    170 
(1877). 
("riticised  in   Express  Co.   v.  Cald- 
i      well.  21  Wail.  201  (1871:  Sontbern 
I      Kx.  Co.  V.  llimnicntt.  .'>)  .Miss.  .")(;(; 
■      (I^<77). 
Criticised  in  Ibis  treatise.  Cap.  VI. 

iJ  128. 
Criticised  in  this  i realise.  ( 'ap.  \  III. 

v(  10.").  and  si-e  ( 'aj).  \'.  ^  12."). 
Criiici.-id  in  ibis  treatise. '( 'ap.  VIII. 

*;  10.").  and  see  ( 'ap.  \'.  j;'  12.'). 
Criiiciscd  in  Avre-;  v.  Western  < 'o.. 

14  ni.aicbr.  ii!  (1S70). 

Disiin,irni-be(l  in  Mrie  i^cc  Transpoi'- 
j  tatioii  Co.  V.  Dale)-.  8  ( '(>iil.  L.  ,1. 
I      2!i;!  (1870). 

!  See  (irace  v.  .\dams.  |(l()  Mass.  .",().") 
I       (I8(W). 

Overrnled  in  Cooper  v.  Herry.  21 
'  (ia.  .")20  (I8,")7)  :  IJerrv  \.  Coopei', 
I  28  (;a.  ,".i:i  (I8.-)0):  (''entral  Line 
i      v.  Lowe.  .")0  (ia.  .")0!)  (I87;i). 


..^^N- 


CASES  OVKUIU'LED,  CKITICISKD,   ETC. 


xlvii 


Frt'i'dom.  'I'lit'     .... 

L.  U.  ;t  1'.  C.  ,V.)I: 

21  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  I.V_>  (1S71). 
French  v.  niiffiiln  \r.  It.  Co    . 

I  Kcv.'s.  I(»s. 

■->  Al)li.  .\|)|..  Di'c.  km;  (1S(I8). 
GofJK'"  V.  Kansas  I'lic.  IJ.Co 

12  Kas.  IK;  (IN7I). 
(id-liii;!;  V.  Ili^iiiiis     . 

1  ('ani|(.  l')l  (ISOS). 
(ioiild  V.  Hill       .        . 

2  llill.(12;{  (ISI2). 


fJraiT  V.  Adams  .... 

ii»()  Mas-.  .Mir.  (isns). 
Jlaiiis  V,  Kami    .... 

1  N.  II.  2."i'.»  (l."<27). 
Ila\s  V.  Ki'IiihmIv 

■  11  Pa.  Si.  ;!7S  (isci). 
llcmlt'isun  \.  SK'vt'ii-uii     . 

\..  H.  2  Sc.  \  Div.  170  {\s7:t). 

JIiTsli.dd  V.  Ailaiiis     . 
lit  Barl).  :.77  (isi:.:,). 

Hiblcr  V.  Mc('ailn('\' . 

:tl  Ala.  .'.(11  (is.-.S). 
Hill  V.  Sviai'iisc  \.'.  K.  ('(I 

10. 1."  I*;:  S.  2'.m;. 

S  Hum.  2:m;  (ls7(i). 
lli'llistcr  V.  Ndwlt'ii    . 

r.i  Wciiil.  2:U  (ISllS). 


Il'inil  V.  New  York  iVr.  U.  t 'o 
22  Conn.  .">02  ^ls,■.:l). 

llniipi'l-  V.  \V<  IN. 

27  Cal.  11  (^ISC.I). 


llnpkins  V.  Wi'slcntt   . 

11  lllatrlif.  CI  (IS(iS). 
Illinois  ( 'cnl.  !{.  Co.  v.  Adam- 

12  III.  !7I  (1.m;7). 
Indiana  i^c.  I'.  (\>.  \.  Mnudv 

21  in<t.  1^  (IS*;;;). 


.  (Criticised  in  The  Clias -a.  I,.  K.  4 
Adni.  I  Hi.  2;i  I-.  T.  (\.  S)  s:?S.  II 
L.  .1.  A<lni.  17  (IS7.".). 

.  Ciiiiciscd  in  this  treatise.  Cap.  M. 
S  12S. 

.  l)istin<;iiished  in  lUee  v.  Kansas 
iVc.  l{.  Co..  (;:}  Mo.  :n  i  (is7(;). 

.    ('litici-ed    in  this   irea(i>e.  Cap.    I. 

>■  1^. 
.    (h-'iiideil   in   ISi--cll  V.   New   York 

<eni.  K.  Co.. 2.".  N.  V.  112  (IsCrJ): 

I'ai-sons    V.    Moniealh.   i;i    Itarli. 

;;.");!.  ;;:.!i  (is.M) :  Moore  v.   Kvan-. 

II   l{arl>.  ."i2l.  .")2(;  (ls,-,2);   Dorr  v. 

New    .lersev   Sleani    Nas'.   ('o..    1 

Sandf.    II'.C' (isr.O).  11  N.    Y.  Is.'i. 
'       r.M    (lS."»|):See   also    Mercantile 

Mnt.    Ins.  Co.  V.   Ch;.:'!.   1  K.   I). 

Smith.  II.".  i,ls.-.i));  Welch  V.  I'itis- 

l.nruli  \c.  K.  Co.,  10  Ohio  St.  C..".. 

70    (isr.i;;     Indianajjolis   iicc.   J{. 
■      Co.  V.  Cox.  211  Ind.l'.dlt  (IS(iS). 
Denied  in  Ameiican  I'nion  Kxi)re<s 

Co.  V.  Schier.  .■..".  111.  I  10  (1S70). 
.    Critiiised   in  this  treatise.  Cap.  VI. 

ij  1  i:i. 
.    ("riiicised   in    tliis   treatise.  ( 'aj),    1. 

j  .">.    V  III.  t;   Kl.'i. 
.    Distiiijcuislied   in    Unrke   v.    Soutli- 

easfrn  li.  Co..    reported  in   tiiis 

treilise  j  2(11. 
.    !'->'.<i.ted   in    Kead    v.   Spaiildin>;'.  ."» 

r.usw.  ;.!).">  (is."i',i);   Place  V.  I'liion 

K\.  Co..  2  Milt,  r.t  (IS.-.S). 
.    Criticised  in  this  ireatisc.  (.'ap. VIII. 

$  Hi.-.,  and  sec  <"ap.  V.  §  12.-). 
.    o.errided  in  Mill  v.  Syracuse  iS:c. 

U.  »  o..  7:5  N.  1 .  :i.->l  (lS7s). 

.  Denied  in  Michij;an  Cent.  K.  Co.  v. 
Hale.  (1  Mich.  24;5.  2(iO  (IS.-.li). 
('iiiilrn.  Hatson  v.  Donovan.  4 
Harn.  I'v;  Aid.  21  (l,s20):  2  Par- 
son's t'oni.  ■-'•">2.  note  (.'.  VaI.).  Si'c 
Mcrcanlile  Mnl.  ins.  Co.  v.  Chase. 
1  K.  D.  Smith.  II.-..  117  (IS.-.O). 

.  Crilici-cd  in  this  treati:-e.  Cap.  XI. 
S  2;!.-,. 

.  Criticised  in  ( 'hristenson  v.  .\mcii- 
i';m  I'^xpress  ('o.,  i.".  Minn.  270 
(IS70).  Denied  in  IJank  ol  Immi- 
tnckv.  l.?ii  Adam-  Hx.  Co..  1 
Cent'.  L.  .1.  i;i(!  (1S7I). 

.  Denied  in  Uiossc.m  v.  Dodd.  i;'.  X. 
Y.  2(;i.  2(;s  (IS70). 

.    ( 'rilicl<cd  ii!    tliis  treatise.  < 'ap.  \  1. 

.  I  See  .Michi;;an  iv:c.  ){.  Ch.  v.  Ilcatr.n. 
:>7  Ind.  i  IS  (1S71  I :  Ohi(.  A;c.  U. 
Co.  V.  S(dl)y.  17  iini.  471  (l.s7iK 
i  'riiii'isei!  in  ihi-trcatise.  Vi\\u  IX. 
s<  217. 


XlVlll 


CASKS  OVKIMMI.KI),  CKITinsi;!),   KTC 


0: 


liiili!Ui;i|ii>li«  I'ii'.  !?■  <'"•  V.  Alli'ii 

;fl  lliil.  -Mi  (1N(!!I). 
Iiiili!iiiiiiMili>  iVc.  |{.  Co.  V.  I{iMiiiiiy 

i:i  Itiil.  .MS  (Is.MP. 
Jnliiisiin  \.  N'rw  York  Cent.  Ii.  Ci> 

:il  M;irti.  I!M)  (is:.7). 

joiios  V.  riiiiitT. 

:isi.  A'  1'.  i;i5  (is:f;{). 

.Idlics  V.  X'ui'i'lircs 

KMHlio.  li:.  (ISId.) 

II  .loiiii-.  Kir'dsin. 

KiMirlfT  V.  Ef,'^l('S((Hi   . 

Al(',\ii.  :».;. 
Klnil)Mli  V.  K'lilhiiii!  \('.  li.  Co  . 

2(1  \t.  i!l7  (is:)!.) 
Kirliv  V.  A(Imiii«  K\.  I'd     . 

■2  Mo.  (Alili. '  :{(;!i. 

;t  Cent.  L.  J.  4U.")  (I.S7(;). 
Klrkljiiid  \'.  iMiisinurc 

I  'riioiiip.  i\:  c.  :m  fis7i. 

I.iikc  .*^luirc  Ac.  K.  Co.  V.  I'cikiiis 

2.')  Mirh.  ;;2;)  (Is7-J.) 
I-('('.«oil  \.  iloll    . 

1  Stark,  isi;  (ISKI). 

Liver  Alkali  (  o.  y.  Joliiisoii 

I,,  i;.  u  K\.  :i;is  (is7i). 

Maglico  V.  Caiiiilcii  \c,  |{.  Co   . 

-)."  \.  V.  .-.II  (I,s71j. 
.Maviii^'  \.  'I'ndd  .... 

1  .stark.  72  (l^i:>). 


McCiiiic  \-.  Cox 

;t7  Ala.  1)17  (l.s.-.S.:. 
Mcrcliants      I)i.-iiatcli     Trans.     Co.      v 
Moori'    .... 

>SS  111.  Km  {IV7S-). 
.Merrick  v.  IJrainaiil   .        .         .         • 

:fs  Jiarl).  ',7\  (]y(:<i). 
.Micliiyaii  Ceiilnilli.  Co.  v.  Ward     . 

2  .Midi.  .');is  (is,-,;!). 
^Sloore  V.  Kvans 

24  JJarl).  .-|)2  (]S.-)2). 
.Morse  V.  Sliic 

Veiitri'^.  2;}s  (|sT)(;). 
Moses  V.  I'.osloii  A-c.  ]{.  (',, 

:<2  \.  II.  .-,•,';',  fis,-)(i). 
Moses  V.  Xorris 

4  .\.  li.  :i(n  (1S2S). 

5!(>slier  V.  Soinlicni  Ex.  Co 
3.S  (;a.  ;i7  (Is'tJS). 

New  Jeisey   Si  cam    \av.  Co.  v.   Meirhf, 
R-iiik 

(i  llow.  :i44  (184S). 
2se\v  Jci.-cy, 'J'lic 

Oleott.444  (IS4(;) 


,    (.'riiiciscd  ill  iliis  ire.ilise.  Cap.  \'l. 

I      ii   I2S. 
.    Criiici-cd  ill  lliis  ircallx'.  Cap.  \  I. 

;;   I2S. 
.    ONcrriiled  III  •loliii'oii  \-.  New  York 
<  I'lil.  I{.  Co..  :t;i  N.  Y.  (ll(i(lS(i.*ii. 
.    Criliciscd  ill  this  irealiM'.Cap.Vlil. 

J  |i;.-p.  and  MM.  Cap.  V.  j  I2.-.. 
.  I  See  |)a\i(l«oii    v.   (Jraliaiii.  2   Ohio 
j     SI.  i;U  ,is.-,;t). 
.See  'i'he  Waldo. 1  Davci-.  Kll  (ls.||). 

.  I  Doillited    ill    (iililioii   \.    I'ayiitoii.  4 

!      Hiirr.  22'.is  ( I7ii:i;. 
.  I  Si  c    .Miclii!,'aii   i^c.    H.    (  'o.    V.    V.r- 

l»oiiou;.:li.  2!  Mi.4i.  111.-)  I  Is7(i). 
.  '  Ciiiici-c(l   ill  this  treatise.  Caii.  IX. 

S  212. 


<>\ciiiilcd  ill  Kiiklaiid  v.  I  »iii-iiioie. 
j      •;2  N.  Y.  171  .  In7.-.). 
I  ( 'ritii'i-cd  ill    iliis   trc;iti-c.  ( 'ap.  \'. 

I      j   '<'■'. 
Overruled  in  Wii^lii    \.   I'lilliani.  2 

Chitl.    121  ^  isltii:  >cc  Sinn  Id  >  v 

Til-on.  2  M.d.ean  l.'iS  (  |s||  i. 
|)isiini;iii«licd   in  Scail'c  v.  r'airani. 

2:1  W.    U.  Sill;  2   Ceiil.    I,.  .1.  (iii.-> 

(ls7.-.). 
I»isiinMiiis||,.(i   ji,   .Kiiia  Ins.  Co.  v. 

Wheeler.  I'.i  \.  Y.  HH;  (  172,. 
Denied  in   Mlin  \.    Mayo.  Id  \\.    :,r, 

(ls;!Sj.  l)oiiliiediii,S|(iry  (Ml  IJail- 

nients.    ^  l.'il :    .see    Parsons    mi 
I      Coiiiraei>  I  i;{.  note.  (.-)  Kd.) 
Critiii-ed  in  this  treatise.  ( 'ap.VIII. 

J  1(1.-..  and  see  Cap.  \'.  ^12.-.. 
I)istini;iii-licd  in  Mric  ,V(.  Trails.  <  'u. 

V.  Oaler.  S  Cent.  I,.  ,1.  2s:{  (|S7!I). 

h'everscd  inl!!   \.  Y.  I'.US  I'lSllC). 


Overruled  in   .Midiiifan   Central   |{. 

<'o.  V.  Hale.  (I  Mich.  212  ns,-,!!). 
Denied  in   linlianapi'li-  .Vc.   |{.  C(.. 

V.  Cox.  2:1  liid.  ;;r,o  f  IMIS). 
Doiil.icd    in   (iihhon  v.    ravnion.  I 

liinr.  221IS  (!7(!!)). 
See   Wei.d   V.   ( ■idckcr.  |s  Wis.  IM.'. 

(1S(i4). 
See    Mall    v.    Chenev.  :'.(!   X.   II.   211 
Cl.'<.-)7);   Ilaekeii  v!  ISoston  ^e.  1{. 
<'o..  ;t.->  X.  II.  ;t!MI  (•lS.-.7j. 

See  Xnttinjr  v.  C Hiv.  I{.  C«...  1 

(iray  .->02  (Is.-.l:  '^iiiniliv  v.  Van- 
!     derliilt.  17  .X.  Y.  :\W  1  \s:,s). 
I  Sec  Atkins   v.    Kil.iv   C(...    1     Bin. 
j      lis  (ls(i7):  The  i.ei.iianl.  ;;  Hen. 
!     2(j:t  (ISO! I-). 

:  Criticised  in  this  treatise.  Cap.Vdi. 
!      i;20(;. 


CASEH  OVKURlLKn,  rUITlCtSKI),  ETC. 


xlix 


N'W'lK.lu^  V.  N.w  York  ("."iif.  K.  Co  . 
tl  riionip.  \  ('.  (iOi;. 

iiiiiii.;{27  (isr.'i). 

N'icliolson  V.  Willaii  .... 

.')  Kiisl.  .'lOT  (ISO I). 
l)|i|i<'iili('iim'r  V.  rnilfd  .stutt's  Kx.  Co 

t)7  111.  1)2  (\s:2). 

raclllc.    riic 

1   lUalclif.  .'.(lit  (\SM). 
r*!iiii  \.  Hiitfalo  \f.  I{.  Co 

(!•  N.  Y.  201  (IS7-J). 
IVrkihs  V.  New  York  Ciil.  1£.  . 

•J I  N.  Y.  1V<;  (INiJ;. 


I't'iTv  V.  riniinpson    .... 

'.'•s  Mass.  -Jilt  (Isc.D. 
I'oiiiluT  V.  New  YoiK  CtMU.  H.  Co  , 

111  N.  Y.  -JC.;?  (I,s7:i). 
I'lilliiiiM  I'alMfc  Car  Co.  v.  .'^mltli      . 

7.1  III.  :t(;o  (IS77). 
liailroail  Co.  v.  A<laiii« 

IJ  111.  ■171  0S(17). 
liailroail  Co.  v.  Alii-n 

;ti  hid.  ;i:ti  (Im;:i). 

J{ailinail  Co.  V.  MmihIv 
•Jl  hi.l.  IS  (lsi;,t)." 


Maili'oad  Co.  v.  I't-rkiiis     . 

•J.".  Mifli.  :i-J!t  (IS72). 
Hallioad  <'ci.  v.  K'rimiiv     . 

i;'.  Iiid.  .".IS  ^l.s.Mi)." 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Ward 

•J  Mich.  .VIS  (ls.-.:i). 
Hire  \ .  Kan-a-^  iV"'.  K.  ( 'o. 

ii:l  .Mo.  lil  I  ,  l>;7('.). 
Kixlord  V.  .Smiili 

.".2  N.  II.  :i.M  (ls72). 
Koliiiisoii   V.  Mcniiaiils  Dis.  Trans. 

l.'»  Iowa.  170  (ls77). 
Sampson  v.  (Ja/zani  . 

f.  Toit.  r.';:  i  is;i7). 

Santic.  Tlif        .... 

7  IJlalcId'.  IMi  (IS70j. 


Slu'lion     V.    Mcrilianls    Dispatch   '1 
Cm 

Mi  N.  Y.  (S.  C.)  .VJ7  (1S7:J). 
Slii'lioM   V.  Mcri'liants   Dispatch     T 
Co. 

.VJ  N.  Y.  -J.Vs  (1S71). 
.'^in^ons  v.  Great  Western  I?.  Co. 

ISC.  H.  SO.-,  (is.-.c.i. 
Smith  V.  New  York  Cent.  1{.  Co. 

2-1  N.  Y.  222  (1S(J2). 
iv 


Co. 


ran- 


ran! 


Crllldseil  In  this  troatiso.  Cap.  II. 
)j  2s.  VI.  5;  |:{(l. 

D<iMhted    in    riarnetl    v.   U  illari.  .'i 

n.  s.  Aid.  .vt.ii:!.  (IS21). 

DWtin^iii-^hed  In  llrle  \c.  'I'raiispor- 

latioii  Co.  V.  I  Mier.  s  Cen'.  L.  .1. 

■I'.n  (\S7\\). 
See  The  (;eneral  Sheridan.  2   Hen. 

2111  (isiis). 
Critici-ed    in    this  trealise.  ( 'ap.  \'. 

S  1011. 
Denied  in  Hooper  v.  Well-.  27  Cal. 

!!.    II    ( is(il).  Criticised    in  thi> 

ireati-e.  Cap.   II.  Jj  2S.   VI.  4    12S 

I.\.  ><  220. 
.See  (irace  v.  .\ilam-^.  liio  Ma-s.  .■)ii.-.. 

(ISCS). 
.    Criticised   in  this  treati.-e.  Cap.  VI. 

!      5»   I'-i''^- 
Crilici«ed    in    thi-  ireati-e,  Ca)..   I. 

Ci'llici-ed   in  tlii- treatise.  Can.   \'I. 

j  1 2s. 
Criticised  in  this  trea1i-e,  C:i;i.  \I. 

S  12S. 
See  Micld^inn  Oa-.  I{.  Co.  v.  lleaiun. 

:!7  Ind.    IIS  (1S71    :  Ohio  \c.  K. 

Co.  •     Sell.y.  17   Ind.  -471    (ls7n. 

Criti(i-ed  in  this  ire.ati-e.  Cap.  IX 

«i217. 
Criiii     rd    in   thi-   treali-e,  (  ap.  V. 

i    S  1  <>■.>. 

(_'ritii'i-ed   in  thi-  treatise.  Cap.  \'|. 

5il2s. 
Overrnied  in  .Miihiiian  ( 'en! .  I!.  <  'o. 

V.  Hale.  11  Mii'li.  2i:{  (IS.V.ii. 
Distini;ni-hed  in  Oxlev  v.  .s^t.  I.onis 

A:c.  k.  Co.  (ir.  Mo.  (12'.>  (1>77). 
Critici-ed   in  liii-  Ireati-e.  Cap.  \'\. 

S  i:t7. 
.See  Sonihern   K\.  Co.  y.  Ann-tead. 

.■)0  Ala.  :i.".0  (1S7;!). 
Criticised  in  thistrc:iiiso.  Cap.  VIII. 

5tl(M.and  -ee  Cap.  \'.  §12.->. 
I)i-tinl;lM^l!l•d  in  Collins  v.  Hnrns. 

:i<l  N.  Y.  (S.  c.)  .-.IS  ris;:;).  c,;', 

\.  Y.  1  {_\s7:,). 

Overrided  in  Shellon  v.  Jlercliants 
Dispatch  Tran-.  Co.  .->!»  N.  Y.  2.-)S 
lls7l;. 

DistiiiLTni-hed  in  Wilde  v.  Mei'- 
chants  Dispatch  Trans.  Co.  ij  la. 
217  (1S77). 

Dictum  donbtecl  in   (Jorton  v.  Rris- 

t<.i  \c.  H.Co.i  IJ.  iscs.irjcistii). 

Criticised  in  this  treatise.  Cap.  II. 
ii2S.  VI.  :;  12S.  IX.  220. 


li 


»>■,{    iS^'. 


R'ffi"=*^B|iS 


li 


'4- 


■J! 


(III 


i 


S||I\  I  1  V.  Nlnloll 

'j  H.iil.vv.  121  0*<:!lt- 
Sdiillicrn  Kxpri'-is  Cii.  v.  Aiiii-li'in 

.■|(»  .Mm.  ;i.'.(»  (,|S7;!). 
^lllltlM•nl  Kxprc",- Co.  v.  (.'npcrtoii 
II  .\l,i.  Mil  (H:(I). 


Siowan  \ .  [.oihIkii  iV;c.  l;.  ('>>. 
:i  II.  iv  r.  i;i.-)  (^|s(in. 

Slilcs  v.  |);iv|.i     . 

I   r.l:lrk.  Id!   (|S(!|). 
Si.  .Injiii  V.  \mii  SiiiilvitDnl 

•-'.".  W.llil.  f.llO  (ISIJ), 
SiiJliiiiM.  TIm' 

.'.  Wi-.  i:.i  ^is.'iii). 

'I'llC    CilM'U     .... 

Dav.  Is.  Is  I  (IS  I-.)). 
'I'lic  Kn  rilom 

I-.  n. ;;  v.  c.  iV.n. 

Jl  L.  T.  (\.S.)  .I.-.2  (1^71) 
'I'llC  N'i'w  .Irr«('v 

oici.it  III  (isirt). 

Tlic  l';i.  iiic 

1  Itlaiclif.  .-)i;!i  fls.-iO). 
'I'lic  Siiiitci'. 

7  lil.t.'hf.  isii  (|,S7(>,). 

The  Snltaiiii        ... 

.">  \Vi«.  IM  (is,-.ti,. 
Van  I  lorn  v.  Taylor  . 

-'  La.  .Villi.  ^S7  (1817). 
Van  Hern  v.  Tuvlor  . 

7  Hoi).  JOI   (isii). 
AVii]|)ol<'  V,  nri(l;;i's     . 

.")  U!a<-kf.  222  (l.s:i!t). 
AVanIt  n  v.  (iwn- 

<!  Watts.  124  (I8:?7). 
Wells  V.  Xfw  York  Cent.  IJ.  Co 

24X.  Y.  ISI  (18(;-i). 


Ui'lls  V.  Srcain  Nav.  Co.    . 

s\.  Y.  :!7r>  (IS.-,;;,. 
Western  rnion  Te!.  Co.  v.  Carew 

1".  .Mi.li.  -,o:,  (i,s(j7). 

Wliitesidesv.  Tlnirlkill      . 
12  .s.  i\c  y\.  :,'M  (IS tit). 
AVrii;ht  v.  Gaff    .        . 

5  iiid.  in;  (is.w). 


Ziii:>;  V.  Sontli(!ast(>ni  IJ.  Co.     . 
J..  K.  1  Q.  B.  530  (ISG'.t). 


.    Oveniilcil  in  MrCli'iiaijIian  v.  Hmek 

.•)  Ilieli.  17  (ls:,|). 

.    See    |{(iliiii»on    V.    Mercliiiiit'     Mi*- 

paicli  Trail-.  ( '<>.  |."i  la.  I7il  ( |S77). 

.    Critii'heil  in  Kxpn'-"  V.  Caldwell.  21 

Wall.  2<ll   (IS7I):    Soiitlierii   \]\. 

I     Co.   V.    Ilnnnieiiti.   .')l    .Miss.    :>iiil 

'     (is77i. 

.    ()\ernil('il  In  C  ilieii  v.  .Soniliea»lerii 

'     It.  Co.  I,,  i:.  2  I'A.  I).  2.v:  (IS77). 

.  >Crilii'i«'(|   in   I'Mward-  v.  lied   Line 

Tran-i!  <  'o.  liH   .Ma--.  l.-iH  i  l«7<t). 
.Overruled  in  \'aii  Sanl\oorl  v.  St. 

.loliii.  i;  Hill.  |.-,7  (is|;t). 
,    i):iii!ii<  i|  in  lr\in.- V.  Tlie  l(  inilnnx. 

;i  Minn.  1112  (is.v.t;. 
.    (.'rili>i-ed  in  this  ireati-e.  Cap.  \||| 

ii  211(1. 
.    Cr'ilieisi'd   ill    Tlie  Clia-ca.   I..   I{.    i 

Adni.    IK;:    2,!  I,.  T.  (\.  S.)  S,|S; 
'      II  I,.  T.  .Vdni.  17  (1S7.-)). 
.    Crlllei-ed  in  (hi-  treali-e.  C.ip.VHi. 

i      it  21)11. 
.See  Tlie  (i'lierai  Slieridan.  2  lien. 

j      211 1  (isiis). 
.    jti-liimni-lied  in  Collins  v.   niirn-. 

:!il  N.  Y.  (S.C.I  .MS  vls7;t   :  t!;i  \. 

Y.  I  (i->7:.i. 

.    Doiiliied  ill  li\ine  V.  The  llainhiiry, 

j     :;  Minn.  I!t2  (  |s.-,!(). 
.    ( 'riliei-.'d  in  this  treatise.  Cap.  VIM, 

I    ij  Hi.".. 

.  '  Criliei-ed  ill  litis  lieati>e.( 'an.  VIII. 

i      i>  III''. 
.    Criiieised  in  llii- treatise.  Cap.  VIII. 
ji  2l)ti. 
Critieised    in   this   Ireali-e.  Cai).  1. 
fill. 

.  j  Denied  in  IIoo]>er  v.  AVidls.  27  <'al. 

n.  i:!  (isc.i;:  Jini.iie  ,\:e.  U.  (•„. 

I      V.  Iliipkins.  II   .Ma.    iMi;   K'o^e  v. 

I      Des  .Moines  Valley    |{.  Co.  :;!»  In. 

I      2l(i(IS7l).  ('rilieised  inthis  trea- 

I     tise.  Cap.  II.  ii2s.  \l.  ij  I2S. 

.  ,  Doiihied   ill   Sniitli    v.    >s'e\v   York 

I      Cent.  |{.  Co.  2!)  Marl).  I;t2   (ls.-.;i). 

.    ('riliei-ed  ill  tiiis  irraii-e.  Cap.  I.  j  I. 


.    Critiei-ed  iiitlii-lreati-e.Ca|).  \'||1. 
j  Km. 

.  '  I'ritieised  in  tlii>  ire;iti-e.  Cip.  VI. 
S  12S.  See  .Mieliiu,an  Ae.  K.  Co. 
V.  Il.aton.  :i7  Ind.  IIS  (1S7I): 
Oiiio  I've.  K.  Co.  V.  S(dl)V.  17  Inil. 
■171  (1S7I). 
Criticised  in  Henderson  v.  Steven- 
son. 2  Sc.  A  Div.  170  (IS75). 


ii 


sii  ff:*SN*''S**-'i»i  rj 


IN 


SK 


T  H  K 


CONTRACTS  OF  COMMON  CARRIERS. 


CIIAPTKll  I. 


INTROOl  (TION THK    LIABILITIKS    OF    COMMON    CARKIBK8    IM- 

DEl'KiNUKNT    OF    Sl'ECIAL    CONTRACT. 


SKCTION. 

1.  Who  arc  Coimnon  Carriers. 

2.  Coiiunon  Carriers  as  lusiirers. 

;}.  Kxceptions  lo  ilie  Liability  as  Insurers. 

4.  'I'lie  Act  of  God. 

.').  Discordant  Decisions, 

0.  Cases  not  Witliin  tlie  Act  of  (Jod. 

7.  'i'lie  (Question  of  Xejjligencc  Immaterial. 

8.  Act  of  (iod  the  Kxclnsive  Cause. 

!l.  N'c^li;;cnc»'  and  .\cl  of  (iod  Conciirrin<5. 

10.  Loss  by  Ac-t  of  (Jotl  after  Xe<rli<,'ent  Delay. 

11.  Loss  by  Act  of  (Jod  after  Deviation. 

1:2.  Duty  of  Carrier  to  Treserve  (ii  ods  Damaged  by  Act  of  God. 

\'.\.  Tlic  L'nblic  Kuemy. 

14.  Losses  C'aiised  by  Ijiherent  Defects  iu  Goods  Carried. 

l."».  Liabilities  of  Carriers  of  Tassengers. 

ICi.  Liabilities  of  Carriers  of  Animals. 

17.  Losses  Cau.sed  by  Seizure  under  Process. 

18.  Discordant  D«'cisions. 

1!».  Losses  Caused  by  Act  (»r  Omis.sion  of  Owner, 

20.  Concealment  of  Value  or  (Quality. 

21.  Fraud  Always  a  Bar. 


-•;-^^-»^»«-:ia?fSt''S5SS^j||j||IPII^.- 


I'**?'* 


!  ii 


ifi 


I  ' 


ir: 


II 


2  TltK  (  ONTKACTS  OF  rAUKIKUS. 

22.     I,(»-iM->  Ciiiisfil  by  Xcu'lcc'l  iif  OuiiiT. 

•2A.     Owner  Uiulcrlakiu.u-  I'ait  of  Duties  of  ('airier. 


[CH.   I. 


Sect.  1.  W/to  an^  Conimo)!  ('(irricrs. —  A  conunon  car- 
ri  1-  is  one  who  uiulci-takcs,  for  liir<',  to  tnuisport  the  goods 
for  such  as  clioosf  to  ciuplov  him,  from  plaeo  to  place' 
His  duties  partalvc  of  a  pul)lic  character,  and  are  subject  to 
legibhitivc  reotilatiou  and  control.-'  Like  other  bailees  for 
hire,  he  is  hound  to  the  exercise  of  that  care  and  diligenco 
which  are  usually  l)esto\ved  by  men  of  ordinary  pi'udenc<'  in 
the  manam'inent  of  their  own  affairs  ;  and  he  is  liable  foi" 
any  want  of  skill  in  his  calliniT.  In  these  respects  the  com- 
mon carrier  diffei's  not  from  other  l)ailees  for  hire." 

As  cominiT  witiiin  the  definition  first  stated,  tiie  followinir 
are  held  to  the  responsibility  of  connnon  carriers :  An 
express  company  that  forwards  o-oods  from  phice  to 
place,  for  hire,  but  in  conveyances  owned  and  nianaired 
})y  others;'  a  staue  coach  jjroprietor  as  to  the  baogairo 
of  passengers;^  a  city  expressman;"  an  omnibus  line;'  a 
railroad  company,"  and  under  some  cii-cumstances  a   horse 

'Parker,  C.  J.,  in  Dwiijlit  v.  Urcw^tcr.  1  Tick.  .">()  (1S22) ;  Mr.  .Instico 
Clifford  in  Tlie  Niaj^iinv  v.  Cordes.  21  How.  7  ('1S.")S). 

2  Peik  V.  Cliiciij,'o,  Ac.  H.  Co..!l4  IT.  S.  HU  (1X7(1) ;  Chicajro,  ^tc.  R.  Co. 
V.  Aekley.  !)4  11.  S.  17!»  { IS7(>) :  Winona.  i<:c.  R.  ( 'o.  v.  lilakc.  !H  l'.  S.  ISO 

(1S7(!). 

•■'  Anjrcll  on  Carriers.  >;  07:   Browne  on  Carriers,  j  12. 

*  Cliristenson  v.  A  eriean  Kxpn^ss  (■<,..  ir,  Mjnri.  27(1  (1S7();; 
TiO\\<'ll  Win-  Fence  Co.  v.  Sargent,  s  Allen,  IS!I  (Isiil);  Siiernuui  v. 
AVells,  2S  Hurl).  4l);{  (1S.-)S):  Baldwin  v.  .Vni.'riean  Kxpress  Co.,  2:»  111. 
197(18.5!));  Read  v.  SpaMldinsr,  5  Rosw.  :{!l.")  (IS.-)!));  Ifaslani  v.  Adams 
Exi)re.s.s  Co.,  (i  Bosw.  2:!.")  (isiiO);  Sweet  v.  Harney.  2K  X.  Y.  :{;{.")  (1S(!1); 
Vernor  v.  Sweitz.M-,  :!2  Pa.  St.  20S  (^1S.-,S) ;  Soiitliern  Kxpress  Co.  v! 
Newl)y.  :{<)  Ga.  O;!.")  (IS(i7). 

•^  Ilollister  V.  Xowlen.  l!)  Wend.  2;?4  (ls;{S);  Cole  v.  (Joodwin.  Id.  2.-)l 
(ls;iS);  Chirk  V.  Faxion.  20  Wend.  l,-.:i  i,18:W)  ;  Powell  v.  Myers,  2(! 
Wend.  .-)!H  (1S41);  Camden  &e.  Trans]).  Co.  v.  Belknap.  21  wi'nd.iril 
(lS:{i));  Jones  V.  Vooriiees.  10  Oliio.  It.')  (1S40). 

«  Richards  v.  Westeott,  2  Bosw.  .jSil  (IS.kS). 

'  Parmelee  v.  MeXnlty.  Ill  111.  ,-,51;  (IS.-.S);  Pannelee  v.  Lowitz.  74  III 
110  (1874);  Dibble  v. Brown.  12   (>a.  217  (IS.VJ). 

"Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Webb.  48  Ahi.  .".s.-,  (1S72).  Story  on  Bail- 
ments, §  411(5. 


MWiB 


CH.  I.J 


INTUODUCTION. 


3 


railroiid  coinpiiiiy."  Wagonors  and  teamsters  who  carry 
goods  for  hire  from  one  part  of  a  town  to  another,  or  be- 
tweiMi  different  towns,  are  common  carriers.'"  So  ai'c  the 
owners  and  masters  of  steam))()ats  engaged  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  goods  for  persons  generally,  for  hire.  So  are 
lightmen,  hoymen,  barge  owners,  ferry-men,  canal  boat- 
men, and  others  employed  in  like  manner."  But  according 
to  the  weight  of  authority,  the  owners  of  steamboats  em- 
Ijloycd  in  the  business  of  towing  are  not  common  carriers.'"^ 
[t  has  been  ruled  in  two  cases  that  a  sleeping  car  com- 
])any  is  not  within  the  detinition  of  a  common  carrier,  nor 
subject  to  its  responsibilities,"  but  the  decisions  fail  to  con- 
tain any  satisfactoiy  reasons  for  the  distinction.  It  is  like- 
wise a  disputed  (piestion  whether  or  not  a  telegraph 
company  is  a  common  carrier,  the  weight  of  authority,  in 
this  country  at  least,  answering  it  in  the  negative.'^  The 
method  by  which  these  conclusions  are  reached  is  singular; 
consisting  simply  in  an  attempt  to  make  these  modern  in- 


fit 


'I     , 


•'  Levi  V.  lAiiii.  iVr.  ||(.rsi'  R.  Co.,  11   Allen.  :t(Hi  <  isd.-).) 
'"(Jordoii  V.  Iliitrliiiisoii,  1  W.  »S:  S. -JS,-)  (ISll):  Sloiy  on  B;iilinpnts.  § 
ilii;. 

"  Story  on  nailmcnts.  «}  40(). 

'-'Tlic  SnpnMiit' Conrts  of  Louisiana  and  North  Carolina  liavo  decided 
tliat  thej  arc.  Sniitii  v.  Pierce.  1  La.  ;M!»  (18:W) :  Adams  v.  New- 
Orleans  Towboat  Co..  11  La.  4(5  (1S;J7):  Walston  v.  Myi-rs. .".  Jones,  174 
(l'^.")7).  Tlie  Snpreiiie  Courts  of  California  and  .\e\v  .lersey.  while  de- 
«'idin;j  the  cases  l)efoi'e  tlicni  on  other  fjrounds.  and  waivinj^  this  iiuestion 
as  unnecessary  to  tlie  decision  of  the  eases,  have  intimated  similar  views. 
White  V.  The  Mary  Ann,  0  <'al.  U\i  (lS,")(i) :  Ashmore  v.  Penn.  Steam 
'r«iw  Co.,  -JS  N.  .).  (Law)  ISO  (ISdO).  Tlie  Supreme  Courts  of  Xew 
York,  Kentucky  and  I'emisylvania  liold  the  ojjposite  doctrine.  < 'atonlv. 
Kuuiuey.  i:i  Wend.  :IS7  (is:?.-));  Alexander  v.  (;reiMie.  :{  Hill,'.)  {^ii)  \ 
AV.'lls  V.  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  2  X.  Y.  201  (IStlt);  Leonard  v.  Ileudritikson, 
1^  I'a.  St.  ID  (iS.-.l) ;  Varble  v.  Kiirley.  !t  Cent.  L.  .1.  \y.\  (1S7!)). 

"  Pidlman  I'alace  Car  Co.  v.  Smith.  7:$  111.  ;{<)()  (1S77) :  Blum  v.  Soutli- 
erii  I'ullnian  Palace  Car  Co.,  lU.'ent.  L.  .F,  .">ni  (lS7(i). 

'*  In  lOnjfland  and  California  a  tele;irai)h  company  is  rejjjarded  as  a 
«'ommon  carrier.  McAndrew  v.  Klectric  Tel.  Co.  17  C.  B.  :{  (185.")); 
Parks  V.  Alta  Califonua  Tel.  Co..  1:5  Cal.  42-.»  (1S,-)!I).  Elsewhere,  the 
doctrine  is  as  stated  in  tin-  text.  Western  Cnion  Tel.  Co.  v.  Carew,  15 
Mieli.  ,V2.")  (1S()7):2  Parsons  on  (Contracts.  2.")1 :  Hedtield  (m  Carriers,  § 
.')iji'i;  Seott  A  .larniyan  on  Telejjruphs. 


,y.':\UX»-^iVmm 


a^iaaWBwafj^jpmil^. 


c     .--•^^P': 


i 

It 


4 


THK  CONTUACTS  OF  C'AIJKIKHS. 


[ni.  I. 


volitions  tit  the  dotiiiitions  which  (Miiof  ,histic'cs  II(.i/r  and 
Ellknuokouch  <riiv(',  and  tindini:-  tlicni  cither  too  wicU-  or 
too  imrron-  for  the  purpose  to  consider  them  as  of  another 
chiss.  It  must  he  coneeckHl  that  had  til*'  pahice  car  and  tel- 
t'trraph  of  this  cenlurv  hoen  as  veil  l<no\vn  to  the  old  com- 
mon hiw  judges  as  were  the  \va<roner  and  messenjrer  of 
thoir  day,  they  would  scarcely  have  excluded  the  lirst  two  in 
estahlishinir  a  rule  for  the  hetler  protection  of  the  property 
of  the  puhlic  while  intrusted  to  the  hands  of  others.  That 
the  accommodation  offered  to  the  passen«r(T  was  more  luxu- 
riant, or  that  the  physical  airency  employed  was  a  million 
times  swifter  in  its  operation,  would  have  presented  a  very 
poor  reason  for  the  sleeping;  car  evadinir  the  duties  of  the 
wajroner,  or  the  telcirraph  company  those  of  the  mess«'n^n'r. 

§  2.  Vommon  Carriers  ox  /iiKiinrs. —  In  addition  to  this 
general  liahility,  the  common  <!arri(M'  is  reuarded  as  an  in- 
surer of  the  ])roperty  intrusted  to  him.  Mis  insurance  dif- 
fers ffoin  other  forms  of  insunince  in  the  followinjr  re- 
spects: Fh'fil.  When  <;oods  in  the  hands  of  a  carrrier  have 
been  lost,  he  can  not  sue  an  insurance  company  whicli  had 
insured  them  for  the  owner  for  contrihulion.''  In  such 
case  the  liahility  of  the  carrier  is  primary,  and  that  of  the 
underwriter  is  only  secondary.'"  /SeroiHl.  His  insurance  is 
always  connected  with  the  custody  (tf  the  iroods.''  lliinl. 
In  the  absence  of  contra<'t,  the  immemoi'ial  common  law  of 
England  makes  ceitain  exceptions  from  the  risks  assumed  by 
the  carrier,  which  are  not  imi)lied  in  other  forms  (»f  insur- 
ance. Fourth.  The  insurance  of  the  carrici'  residls  fi-om 
the  law  applied  to  a  particular  relationsjiip,  and  not  from  a 
special  contract  to  insure. 

§  3.  Ex.i<'])t!(ms  to  the  Liohiliii/  as  Jii/oirrrs. — Cicnerally, 
the  common  carrier  is  liable  foi-  losses  proceeding  fi'oni 
causes  which  are  wholly  binond  his  conli'ol,  and  which  he 


(11. 


the 
so 
Oth 
and 


M 


"Gailps  V.  Iliiilniiin.  11  Pa.  St.  rA'y  (l.Mii). 

'«llall  V.  Railroad  Co.,  V.\  Wall.  ;H«7  (1S7I) ;  Marl  v.  WcsKmii  H.  (V...  V.\ 
M<'tP.  !m(lS47). 
'' Gaiii's  V.  Ilalliiian.  .>(w;)r«. 


CM.    1.] 


INTIiODUCTION. 


could  Mcitlu'V  prctvidc  iiiraiiisi  nor  forcscio.  Hut.  Ik^  is  not 
li;i!>l('  for  :iuy  loss  oi-  (l:un;iir<'  to  ufoods  in  his  hiinds  ciiuscd 
wholly  cillu'i'liy  Ihc  act  of  (Jod  ortlu^  "kin<>;'s  cncniit^s," 
that,  is,  tiic  |)ul>rK'  ciiciny.  It  is  said  that  the  n^ason  for 
these  cxci  |)lioiis  is  that  the  (•aiis(^s  of  loss  thus  excepted  arc 
so  notorious  that  they  ai'e  easily  proved  oi-  disproved."* 
<  )ther  eausi's  of  loss  niiti'hl,  howevei',  he  eciuallv  notorious; 
and  other  reasons  for  the  exceptions  niiiiht  he  suii:,ir<'sted. 
The  dilli(adty  of  conipensatiniX  the  tremendous  |osse^  ii^row- 
inir  out  of  puhlic  wai'  is  sulKciently  obvious;  and  it  in 
known  that,  in  an  cMrliei'  ai;"e,  losses  caused  l»v  liirhtninLj, 
tempest,  ("artlnpitdse,  or  any  other  of  the  more  nppallinj; 
piienomena  of  Nature,  were  reLiar«h'd  as  the  ju<lirments  of 
Heaven,  which  sliould  he  allowed  to  rest  whei'c  they  fell.'" 
At  the  present  lime  tlie  action  of  the  Deity  is  as  much  rv- 
<'oi;ni/.ed  in  the  m(»sl  ijuiet  operation  <d'  iiatui'c  as  in  the 
most  violent  ;  l)ut  it  is  impoi'lant  to  he  i'emend)ered  that  in 
the  law  of  cai'riers  the  phrase  "the  act  of  (iod"  remains 
true  to  its  oriirinal  nu-anini;. 

The  maxiiM  that  common  carriers  arc  liahh'  for  all  h)sses 
ex<'eptinix  those  caused  l»y  the  act  of  (Jod  or  by  the  public 
<'ncniy  is  convenient  (Miouirh  for  common  use ;  ..ut  on  a 
closer  examination  it  w'll  be  found  to  be  inaccurate,  and, 
hence,  to  some  extent  misleadins,'.-'"  More  correctly,  it  nniy 
be  said  that  the  carrier  is  not  liable:  Firfif.  For  losses 
<'ausi'd  bv  th<'  a«'t  of  (Jod.     iSccond.   Losses  caused  bv  the 


'"T.onl  lloli  in  ("o'Tir-^  V.  IScriianl.  _>  1,(1.  Kayin.  !Mt!)  (170;?);  Hcst.  0.  J., 
in  Kilt'v  V.  Hornc.  .">  Hiiifj.  217  (1S_>S);  Forward  v.  IMtlard.  1  Term  Uep. 
27  (17sr)):  'I'lioma-  v.  IJd.ton  \c.  K.  Co..  10  Mete.  172  (184.'));  Spcnciir, 
.F..  in  UolMrl-;  v.  I'liiiicr.  12  .lolms.  2:J2  (ISi:,);  llollisU-r  v.  Xowlcn.  1!) 
W.mkI.  2;M  (is:is);  KlKitw  V.  Hostoii  i^cr.  K.  Co..  2;{  X.  n.,27.">  (1S.-)1); 
Mo-t's  v.  Hostoii  iV:f.  It.  Co..  21  N.  II.  71  (KS.")I);  l{!xf<ir(l  v.  Smith, 
m  N.  II.  :{.V)  (1S72.) 

''■'••Let  us  take  llic  case  of  the  Christian  thinker  some  ccnturit's  hiick. 
His  crccil  hcin^  that  the  l)('i!y  created  and  ordained  all  thinjj;s,  never- 
less,  when  he  hnrnt  his  tinj^cr.  the  cause  of  the  hnrn  he  attrihuted  to  the 
fire,  and  not  to  (Jod;  hut  when  the  thnndiT  nnittered  in  the  sky.  he  at- 
trihuted thai  to  no  cause  hut  (iod."     Lewes'  Mist.  I'iiilo^^..  vol.  I.  j).  12H. 

-"See  Hall  v.  lienfro.  :<  .Mete.  (!\y.)  .•)1   (IS(U)). 


i-^^wmmpm^mma/KKHm^^ 


6 


TIIK  CONXKACTH  OF  CAKHIEUS. 


[(•II.   I. 


public  enemy.  'Third.  Losses  caused  l»y  the  inhereiil  de- 
fect, quality,  or  vice  of  the  thiiiir  carried.  Fourth.  Losses 
caused  l\v  the  seizure  of  _<roods  or  chattels  in  ins  liaiuis, 
under  legal  process.  Fifth.  Losses  caused  by  some  act  or 
omission  of  tlie  owner  of  the  goods. 

With  these  exceptions  the  liability  of  the  carrier  is  union- 
ditional.  To  hold  otherwise,  it  is  said,  would  b"  to  affoi'd 
opportunities  for  collusion  between  carriers  anci  robbers  or 
thieves,  and  to  open  a  way  for  false  p.-etences  on  the  part 
of  carriers  which  could  not  l)e  disproved.'^' 

§4.  llie  '■'■Art  of  Got/.'' — In  a  li;!;e  Phiglish  case  Mr. 
Justice  BuKTT  said:  "The  definition  to  l)e  extracted 
from  all  the  cases  is  said  to  h>-  giv(!n  in  a  note  on 
Coggs  V.  Bernard,  in  the  American  edition  (b}'  Mr.  Wal- 
lace) of  Smith's  Leading  Cases.  The  best  form  of  the 
detinition  seems  to  us  to  be  that  the  damage  or  loss  in  (pies- 
ti(m  must  have  been  caused  directly  and  exclusively  by  such 
a  direct  and  violent  and  sudden  and  irresistible  act  of  Na- 
ture as  the  defendant  [carrier]  could  not  by  any  amount  of 
ability  foresee  would  happen  ;  or,  if  he  could  foresee  that 
it  would  happen,  could  not  by  any  amount  of  care  and  skill 
resist  so  as  to  prevent  its  effect.'""  This  detinition  is  suscej)- 
tible  of  being  misunderstood.  The  phrases  "any  amount 
of  ability,"  and  "any  amount  of  care  and  diliizence,"  mi<rht 
be  supposed  to  erect  a  standard  so  high  that  few  could 
reach  it,  and  which  no  one  could  transcend.  It  is,  perhaps, 
needless  to  say  that  the  law  does  not  exact  from  all  men, 
of  any  class,  (pialities  which  are  so  rare  as  to  be  almost 
unknown.  We  have  seen  tiiat  the  law  recpiires  only  reason- 
able skill  and  reasonable  diligence  ;  but  these  are  rigidly 
demanded.'-*'    Of  course,  the  exact  measure  of  the  skill  and 

^'  Sp<>  cjisos  cited  §  7. 

•^Niijicnt  V.  Sinitli.  L.  R.  1  (J.  V.  Div.  lit  (ISTro  :  15Ei)fr.  Kcp..  Monk's 
Nok's.  20;{ ;  s.  c,  1  C.  P.  Div.  4i:i. 

'^Antt'.  sec.  1;  Edwards  on  Hail.  454.  Tin'  dcllnitioii  ;,'ivcii  Ity  Mr. 
Wallace  is  siibstiiiitially  similar  to  tliat  j,'ivcii  ity  IJrctt.  .1.  1  Sinitli's  I.d. 
Cas.  315.  Sec.  also.  Kiaubcr  v.  Ainerieaii  Kxi)ress  Co..  2i  Wis.  21  (isodj ; 
Friend  v.  Woods.  «  Gratt.  iSi)  (1S4!)J. 


ni.  I.] 


INTUODUCTION. 


diligence  retiuiretl  can  l»e  deterniiuctl  only  l)y  the  degree  of 
the  delicacy  and  importance  of  the  duties  assumed  in  each 
particuhir  case.  With  this  explanation,  the  detinition  thus 
given  may  be  acce|)ted  as  being  a  correct  exposition  of  the 
law  both  in  Kngland  and  America. 

In  order  to  excuse  the  carrier,  the  act  of  Nature  must 
liave  been  violent  ;  such  as  lightning,-'  tein[)est,^''  or  earth- 
quake, or  an  extraordinary  Hood.-''  The  driving  of  a  boat 
against  a  bridge-i)icr  by  a  sudden  gust  of  wind,-'  the  freez- 
ing of  navigal)le  waters,-'"  a  snow-storm  which  blocks  up  a 
railway,"'  have  all  been  regai'detl  as  casi's  falling  within  this 
exception. 

§  /).  Dixvonhtnt  Ihn'sioiis. — Sir  William  .lones  piously  ob- 
jected to  the  use  of  the  phrase  "the  act  of  God,"  as  being 
irreverent,  and  proposed  to  i)ut  that  of  "inevitable  acci- 
dent" in  its  stead,  intending,  apj)arently,  to  give  the  same 
restricted  meaning  to  the  latter  phrasv-.  as  had  been  given  to 
the  f(»rmer."'  Some  of  the  courts  have  been  misled  by  this 
suggestion  :  and  have  supposed  that  a  connnon  carrier  is 
not  liable  for  any  loss  which  he  could  not  foresee  or  pre- 
vent, excepting,  it  would  seem,  .dl  losses  caused  directly  by 
human  mea»v; — as  by  thieves  and  rol)bers."  In  some  of 
the  cases  the  phrase  "the  act  )f  (iod"  has  been  used  so 
vaguely  that    it    is   not    e.isv  i(     aseertain   that    any  i)recise 


"*  Forwanl  v.  I'ittanl.  1  Tcrii!  Rvp.  27  (ITX't). 

••'■■<;ill..||  V.  Kllis,  11  111.  :.7!t  (is,-)(i). 

'■'■  |{c;m1  v.Si.aiiidliij:.  '>  Hosw.  :<!•.">  (IS.V.i);  Nashville  ^:c.  I{.  ( "o..  v.  David, 
C.  Ilfisk. -Jlil  (1S71);  Wallace  V.  t'laytdii.  |-J  (ia.  U:?  (1S71  ) :  I.overiiij;  v. 
IJuek  Mnimtaiii  ("oal  ('o-.M  I'a.  St.  -I'M  {\SC,7 , :  I.am.tiit  v.  Nashville  ito. 
H.  Co..  !t  lli'isk.  ns  (1S71). 

•-^(Jeriiiaiiia  Ins.  ('<..  v.  The  I.aily  IMke.  17  Am.  Law  Kep.  CM  (ISC.It). 

-■^  I'aisoMs  V.  Elanly.  II  Wend.  'Jl.")  (Isit.")):  llanis  v.  Kaiul.  t  N.  II.  259 
(Is27j:  Wallace  v.  Vi<rus.  1  1$1  ickf.  2(l(t  (ls:i7):  West  v.  The  Berlin.  ;5 
luwa  :M  (1s:>(;);  The  Ma;,'.<rie  Ilamniiind.  II  Wall.  i;{5  (ls(i!»):  Worth  v. 
Kdnionds.  .VJ  IJarh.  )(»  (ISdS). 

-"•'  Rallentine  v.  North  Missoiifi  K.  Co..  W  M...  till  nS((7). 

••'.lon.-s  (HI  Hail    101.  1().">. 

■"  Ni'al  V.  Sai'.iderson.  2  S.  \-  M.  .">72  (is|l):  Wal|)olc  v.  IJi'id;j;es.  .') 
Hlackf.  2j2  (lMt!ij. 


-■'tf^i^^vm 


"W 


'smsm'^-i'-i- 


THE  CONTHACTS  OF  CAKIUKU8. 


[CII.   I. 


niciininf!:  \vi\>*  attachod  to  it."-'    Oth(>r  casos  two  more  (wplicil, 
without  hoiiiij  more  salist'actorv.     'riiiis.  in  ("onnocticul.  it 
was  hold  that  the  h)ss  of  a  vessel   l»v  I'liiiniiiir  on  a  rock  not 
ofeiierally  l\M()\vn,  and  not  known  to  the  niasiei',  was,  prima 
J\ii''",  a  h)ss  hy  (he  act  of  (Jod.     Tiie  deeision  was  unneees- 
siirv,  us  the  hill   of    ladini;'  contained   an   exception   of    nil 
losses  hy  'Mlaniri'rs  of  the  sea."'^'    IJut  in  a  lat'T  case  the  saino 
court  held  that  this  hn  ler  ex<'eption  did  not  vary  the  ooni- 
inon-law   liability  of    the  cai-rier.  '      So.    it    has    l»eeu    jichl 
that   the  sinkinii' of  a  l)oal  l»y  a  siiai;-,  without  neiilijrence,  is 
within  the  exception  of  the  act  of  (Jod.''     In  South  Caro- 
lina  it   was   held,  in   an   early  case,   that    carriers   In/   int/ir 
wvvo  not  lial)le  for  accidents  aii'aiiist   which  ordinai'v  foi-e- 
siirht,  care,  skill  and  diliiicnce  could  not  provi(lc.'''     Of  this 
curious  case  the  smne  court   afterwards  said  that   "it   was 
fortunately  forgotten  in  the  louii"  sleep  of  thirty-two  vears 
hefore  i)ul)lication,"'' <iuriii,ir  which  time  it  had  l)een   uncon- 
sciously overruled.  =•*     In  Pennsylvania  it  was  held  that  anv 
misfortune  or  accident  that  could   not    he   averted    l)v  tho 
skill  and  prudence  (»f  the  carrier  was  within  (his  exception."* 


II 


»-'R()l)('ils()ii  V.  Kt'imcdy.  1  Daiiii.  WO  (l,s:W) ;  Spiowl  v.  Kfllar.  I  Mvw. 
&  V.  US2  (is:{:{);  Fisli  V.  Cliapinan.  -J  (ia.  :U!)  flsi7);  K.-ui,  v.  I.iidwick 
GColdw.  :{(;s  (tsd!)). 

•■'"  Williams  v.  Crant.  1  <'«-)im.  -IST  (ISKi). 

••"Crosby  V.  Fitch.  IJ  C.nii.  410  (1S;{S).  Hi,t  in  Hale  v.  X.-w  .I.tscv 
Strain  Xavi^'ationC...  I.',  Conn.  .■);{ll  (lS4;t).  a  plain  distinction  Nvas  nia.lc 
bc'tw<'('n  the  act  of  (iod  and  incvilalilc  accident. 

••"  Faulkner  V.  Wrijjht,  IJicc  107  (Is:{S).  TImtc  is  a  .Urium  of  a  Mn.ilar 
import  in  Moses  v.  N'oitIs.  1  \.  H.  ;{()4  (is-js).  l,nt  it  is  ovcrndcd  hv  Hall 
"■■  •"' >■•  ="!  N'-  H-  •-'<!  (1>*">7).  and  lla.'kcit  v.  IJo>ion  \-c.  |{.  To    'x>  \ 

11.  ;m  (\sru.) 

••'"  Evcrlci»;h  V.  Sylv.'stcr.  2  Hrcv.  17S  (l,s07). 

•■'■  Met Jlcnaglian  v.  Hrock.  :>  IJich.  17  (ls.-,i). 

''^Ha.Tin-tonv.  levies.  L>  Noti  ,^  M.  ss  ,  isi!.).  Yd  its  at.thoritv  was 
S('cnnn;rly  iv.N.nni/,,.,]  i„  steamboat  Co.  v.  Kason.  Ilai-p. -JtW  (is-)))  "  i{„i 
it  was  diss."nted  from  in  I>atton  v.  Ma,i,n'aib.  Diidlev.  1.-,!)  (isiis^  and  was 
distinctly  ..vem.lcd  in  Mc( 'lena-lian  v.  iJrock,  .snpn,,  which  p.obablv 
oven-nles  Smyil  v.  Xiolon.  1  ({alley.  4i'l  ( is:',]  >. 

*'See  a  ion-  and  lo..se  opinion  to  tbi^  effect,  bv  (.owfic  C.  .1  in  Hays 
V.  Kennedy,  4n'a.  St.  :i7s  (iMilj. 


ti 


■■i^Hntlfv 


^^i-i^mekfs^m^iFm-} 


CIl.   I.J 


INTKODUCTION. 


In  Indiiina  there  is  an  intimation  of  the  sjunc  kind.^"  In 
Delaware  it  was  held  that  if  a  vess<'l  sti'ike  on  a  ro<"k  not 
hitlterl((  known,  and  not  laiil  dovn  on  any  chart,  the  master 
is  not  lial)h'."  In  one  case  tlie  eoiirl  lield  lliat,  in  order  for 
the  ai'l  of  Nature  ♦(>  fall  wilhin  llie  exception  of  the  act  of 
(lod,  it  need  not  '>e  violent — as  where  a  vessel  was  caused 
to  drift  auainst  (he  shore  h\  a  siuUlen  lull  in  the  wind.'-' 
The  court  was  mislead  into  usinir  the  conceptions  and  lan- 
iruaufc  of  theolony,  in  place  of  those  of  the  law.  These 
discordant  (h'cisions  have  been  of; en  eriiicisetl  and  con- 
demned.'-' It  may  he  remarked  of  I  hem  that  they  nvo  for 
the  most  part  not  rect-nt,  and  that  all  of  tliem,  with  one  ex- 
i'cption,*^'  relatt^  to  carriers  hy  watei" — dindy  foreshadowiui^ 
the  statutory  relaxations  that  have  been  made  in  favor  of 
that  class  of  carriers  in  the  licncral  interest  of  commerce, 
anti  l)ecaus(!  j^oods  sent  by  water  are  more  comnionlv  insured 
than  those  sent  by  land  :  as  carriers  of  the  former  class 
frerpiently  lose  all  their  means  for  payiuir  for  any  loss  to 
•roods  intrusted  to  them,  by  the  same  accident  by  which  that 

loss  OCCUI'S. 

§  «!,  Cosps  not  Within  the  "vie/  of  (toil.'' — A  loss  from 
tire  not  caused  by  li«rhtnin,<r,^''  or  by  the  burstinir  of  th(! 
boiler  of  a  steamer,'''  or  by  an  unseen  obstruction  in  navi- 


♦' Waliml<'  v.  nii(lv:<'<.  r>  Blackf.  -ll'l  (1S:W). 

<1  I'cMIU'Will  v.  Cllllfll.  .J  IlillT.  -JiJs  (ISIll). 

<-'('nli  v.  McMcclu'ii.  ()  .loliiis.  l«t)  (ISJ",.  N.  ,'.  .')  Am.  Doc.  -JOO. 

*'  I'tT  I.c  fJiaiid.  .1..  in  Fcr^iussoii  v.  Hn-nt.  12  Mil.  !>  (1S.")7) ;  Par<(ins  v. 
Moiitfatli.  V.\  Marl).  \\y.\  (1S.-)1);  Central  Mm'  v.  Lowe.  oO  (Ja.  .■)(»!!  (1S7;{). 
Niito  of  Mr.  Wallace  to  ('ojr;rs  v.  Beniard.  1  Smith's  Lil.  Cas.  :{1."). 

**  Walpole  V.  Hridije^.  supra. 

*''Tlioro;r,„Ml  V.  Mar>h.  1  (iow.  N.l'.C.  1()."»  (isl'.l):  Fonvanl  v.  I'it- 
lanl.  1  Term.  Hep.  •_»"  (17S.")):  Hyde  v.  Trent  Xavif^jation  Co...")  Term. 
IJep.  :!Sit  (17!t:i):  Moore  v.  Miehijran  Cent.  K.  Co.,  ;j  Mich.  "JiJ  (l.S.'):{); 
Cox.  v.  Peterson. ;{()  Ala.  i)(is  (1S.")7) :  Chevallier  v.  .Straham. -J  Tex.  1I.'> 
(1S47) ;  Miller  v.  Steam  Navi^'ation  Co..  1(1  X.  Y.  4:U  (18."):{) ;  I'arsims  v, 
Monteath.  I:<  Barb,  li.xt  (IS.-.l);  Hall  v.  Clionoy,  :Ui  X.  H.  I'tS  (l.s.-)7). 

*'  MeCall  v.  Brock.  .'.  Strol)li.  ]1',»  (IS.W) :  Xavii,'ation  Co.  v.  Dwyor.  '2!) 
Tex.  :{7(;  {1S(J7):  Bnlkley  v.  Xanmkea^' Cotton  Co.,  24  How.  ;J8()  (ISGO); 
The  Edwin.  1  Spragiie.  477  (185l») ;  Tlie  Mohawk.  8  Wall.  loiJ  (18()S). 


^^"^^T'^mmsmHmmi^^f 


'i 


10 


THE  CONTHACTS  OF  (^AlUMKItS. 


[CII.   I. 


ii? 


pitioii,'' or  by  collision  not  ciiusod  by  tcnipcsf /"  or  hy  tho 
l>urnin<;  of  a  shi[)  by  the  burstinir  of  a  cask  of  cliloi-idc  (»f 
lime,  tiioufjli  such  an  occurrence  had  never  been  |ii'e\  iously 
known, ^''  or  by  the  sinkin;;  of  a  vessel  l>y  runnini:  on  a  piece 
of  timber  not  visible  in  ordinary  tides,"  or  by  the  strand- 
ing of  a  vessel  on  a  newlv-formed  and  previously  unknown 
bar  in  a  river,'''  or  by  the  shifting  of  a  buoy,'-'  have  all  been 
held  as  not  fallin<r  within  this  excepti(Ui,  Ihotitrh  in  each 
case  the  carrier  was  without  fault. 

§  7.  T/ii'  Quest  inn  of  JS'c;/h'ffeiu'i'  Immaterial . — 'I'he  (jucs- 
tion  of  ne<:ligence  is  wholly  irrelevant;  for,  if  tlu^  loss 
does  not  fall  within  an  exception  reco<;nized  by  law,  tho 
currier  is  responsible  for  it,  althoujrh  he  exercised  every 
])ossible  dilligence  to  prevent  it.'"'  This  is  only  to  say  that 
th(!  carrier  is  an  insurer. 

§  8.  Act  of  God  the  Exr/usire  Cause. — The  loss  must  bo 
caused  directly  anil  exclusively  by  the  act  of  (Jod,  or  elso 
tho  carrier  will  l)e  lial)le.'''     If  divers  causes  concur  in  tho 


<■  Brnnssoaii  v.  The  Hudson.  II  T.a.  An.  I'J"  (is.'O). 
*'Plai>;.'(l  V.  Uoston  Steam  Navi-^ation  Co.,  i>7  Me.  i:f.'  (1S«7);  Mcr- 
8hon  V.  Ilobcnsaek,  ii  X.  .1.  (Law)  ;{72  (1S.")0). 
*'  Broussoan  v.  The  IIn<Non.  siipni. 
*' New  Brunswick  Steam  Navii^'ation  Co.  v.  Tiers.  -H  S.  .1.  (Law)  O'.tZ 

(issa.) 

"  Friend  v.  Woods,  0  (Jratt.  Isii  flSHlj. 

^-lieavesv.  Waterman,  2  Spears.  11>7  (IMJiJ).  Evans  and  Wardlaw.  JJ., 
dissent  in.a;. 

•'^'' Trent  Navijjation  C'o.  v.  Wood.  4  Don-;!.  •Js7.  I!  i';-|).  Kil  (17s.'>); 
Siordet  v.  Hall.  4  Ulnj,'.  007  (Is2sj;  Clark  v.  Harnwell,  12  How.  272 
(1N.">1);  Ewart  v.  Street.  2  IJailey.  l.")7  (ISIM) ;  Kiii';  v.  Slieitherd.  :{  Story, 
;M!I(ISI4);  Afjnew  v.  The  Cc.nira  Costa.  27  Cal.  12.".  (IMmi:  Slejiliens, 
&e.  Trans.  Co.  v.  Tnekennan.  ;i:(  \.  ,F.  (Eaw)  .")4;t  (IsCiIi):  Chevallier  v. 
Straiiani,  2  Tex.  II.")  (1S47):  Alhriirht  v.  I'enn.  14  Tex.  2!K)  (IS.V.):  I'ar- 
stms  V.  Monteath.  i;{  JJartt.  ;{.-);{  (is,")!);  M.IIenry  v.  Hallroad  Co..  I  llarr. 
448  (IS4(>):  Hays  v.  Kennedy.  41  l»a.  St.  ;{7s  (iscij;  M.Tritl  v.  Karle, 
ai  IJarh.  :ts  (ls.-)!»):  Merritt  v.  lOarle.  2!)  \.  Y.  11.".  (ls(;4):  Forward  v. 
PIttard.  1  Term  l{ep.  27  (I7S.-)j;  Mershon  v.  Ilol)ensack.  22  X.  J.  (Law) 
;{72  (isno);  Baekhouse  v.  Sneed.  I  .Mur|iii.  17:$  (Is(»S);  Ka;,'le  v.  White, 
(I  Whart.  50,-)  (Isil).  aiid  eases  pn.ssim. 

J'*  Si)rowl  v.  Kellar.  4  Stew  &  i'.  :iS2  (ls:i:t) ;   Kwart  v.  Street.  2  Hailey. 
157  (1831) :  King  v.  Sheplierd.  3  Story.  ;{4:»  (ls44> ;  Ahh.  on  Ship.  lU.').' 


.^wwM^i^JJ 


(I 


1. 1.] 


INTKODUCTION. 


11 


loss,  tlio  act  of  God  licinj;  one,  but  iiol  \hv  inmiodiatc  or 
proximatf  caiiso,  lln'  can'icr  is  nol  (lisfliar«f('d  ;"  as,  wliero 
a  vessel  jxrounds  in  a  s((»nn,  the  otHccrs  and  crew  1)imii<i:  luis- 
U'd  l»y  liic  !il)sciii'i'  of  a  customary  liglit,  uud  the  |)i'eseiU'C 
of  a  niis;ruidin«r  light.''" 

§  !>.  y>'tfh'(/f'nn'  (lilt/  Ar(  ■>/  (roll  C'o)ii'urn'iiij. — Where 
the  loss  is  caused  partly  l»y  iiegligeiice  and  partly  I >y  the 
act  of  (lod,  the  carrier  is  liable;''  iis  where  a  master  of  a, 
Vi'ssel  tills  her  boilers  overiiiuht  to  be  ready  for  startiii<;  in 
the  morning,  and  a  pipe  fri f/es  and  l)ursts  in  the  nighty 
thouirli  it  was  customary  t(t  till  the  boilei's  of  outifoini;  ves- 
sels  overnight  •/"'^  or  where  he  has  been  guilty  of  any  pre- 
vious misconduct  by  which  the  y;oods  in  his  ciiarjii^  are  ex- 
posed  to  tl  •  act  of  (lod,  and  are  injured  tiiereby.''"  It  i» 
neglig<'nce  for  a  ferryman  to  start  across  a  river  when  a 
dangerous  wind  is  blowing,''"  or  foi  a  wagoner  to  start 
across  a  stream  with  an  insutlicient  team  ;'"  ami  a  loss  sub- 
se(|uently  occurring  by  reason  of  the  wind,  or  the  sudden 
rising  of  the  stream,  will  not  be  excused.  Hut  where  there 
is  a  loss  by  the  act  of  (Jod,  the  carrier  will  not  l)e  held 
liable  on  a  showing  that  there  was  a   defect  in  his  vessel,  or 


M  N'.'W  Hniiiswick  SH>:imt)oat  (Jo.  v.  Tiers.  2t  N.  J.  (I/nv)  ti!»7  (IS.liJ). 

M  .McAitliiir  V.  Scars.  21  \ycii(l.  1!«>    ls;i!i). 

*"  Lyon  V.  .Mflls.  .">  Kasi.  42f<  (1m>»j;  Davis  v.  (Jarrctl.  (i  IJin^.  7ir> 
(ls:?(l) :  Hiik.-tl  v.  Willaii.  i  H.  it  Aid.  :!.•)(;  ( IM'.)) :  Hoticiiiiaiii  v.  IJciinctt, 
I  l'iiic:U  (IslT):  Siiiitii  v.  Horiic.  2  .Monic.  1H(ls|s);  I'owoll  v.  Layton, 
•JHos.  vt  full.  (N.  H.)  :i(!:.  (IsoCj;  Sionlct  v.  Hall.  I  IJiii^MIOT  (1S2S); 
.Muddle  v.  .stride.!*  ^'.  iSi  I'.  :{M)  (ISl(l);  Luwe  v.  liuc.th.  i;i  Price.  :{2i) 
(1.S24);  HccKfurd  v.  (  riuwell.  ."i  V.  Si  P.  242  (l.s:{2) :  Cailiff  v.  Danvers, 
t  IVaive.  l.V.  171»2);  lliinlcr  v.  I'otts.  4  ('amp.  20:!  (ISi:,);  OalNley  v. 
Steam  Packet  Co..  11  Kx.  <ils  (1S.">(;);  Liivemiii  v.  Drury,  «  Ex.  1U(> 
(1S.-.2) :  lluilin^'wortli  v.  Itrodrick.  7  Ad.  A  E.  4(1  (l.s:J7) :  Dibble  v.  Mor- 
>caii.  1  Woods,  km;  (is7;i);  Elliott  v.  itosseii.  lo.ioiius.  I  (isi:$). 

■■>■*  Sionlct  V.  Hall.  I  Iliuij.  i;(i7  (isi^). 

•''"Hurt  V.  Allen.  2  NVatIs  115  (ls:{;i);  Williams  v.  (;raiii.l  Conn.  487 
(ISKI):  Mor^rau  v.  Dil>l)le.  21»  Tex.  107  (lS(;7i:  Clievj'Mier  v.  Siraham.  2 
Tex.  ll.")(is|7);  Klant)er  v.  American  Express  Co.,  21  Wis.  21  (.ISOO); 
Cook  v.  Gourdin.  2  \ott  it  M.  V.)  (isilt). 

•'  <'ook  V.  (ionrdiii.  mtprii. 

«' E lis  v.  I'earson.  Harp.  47tt  (1S24). 


¥&j.-,.'iSKS'>!aji'*. 


12 


TIIF:  rONTUACTH  ok  CAUKIKItS. 


[CII.    I. 


a  want  of  skill  (in  his  purl  ;  it  must  also  he  made  to  a|)|)<»ar 
that  this  (Icft'ct  or  want  of  skill  contriliiitt'il  to  I  he  loss.''-' 

§  10.  A'w.y  fii/  Act  of  if  oil  nfd'r  Ihhn/. — Wlu-rc  thoro 
is  a  loss  liy  the  iid  of  (Jod  after  a  n(';.'liii('nt  delay  l»y  tlu' 
fai'rier,  the  enses  nre  not  uniform  as  In  the  lia!)ilily 
of  tho  carrier.  Mr.  Browne  says  :"^'  "So,  if  he  [Ihe 
eai'rierj  (hdays  nn  unreasonalily  loii<r  lime  on  ihc  journey, 
and  it  is  proved  thai  hut  for  such  unreasonalde  waste  of 
time  he  would  have  i)een  altle  to  deposit  his  ;roods  in  safety, 
it  will  not  he  a  j^ood  defeix'e  to  an  action  for  the  amount  of 
injinw  done  to  the  ifoods  of  un  (»wncr,  who  entrusted  them 
to  hiui  to  he  carried,  to  sav  that  the  injurv  was  caused  hv  a 
Hood,  whicli  was  the  act  of  (Jod."  This  doctrine  is  fol- 
lowed in  New  Vork."^  Mut  it  is  held  hy  the  Supreme  C'ourt 
of  the  I'nitcd  States,  and  in  I'cnnsylvania,  Massachusetts, 
and  Xi'hraska,  that  in  siirli  case  the  ncLdiirence  of  the 
cai-rier  is  not  the  proximate  cause  o!  he  loss  and  that  he  is 
not  answeralde  for  it.'"' 

§  11.  f^oxs  hi/  Act  of  God  after  JJfviation. — Deviation  is 
tlie  voluntary  departure  from  the  voyaire  or  route  without 
necessity  or  i-easonal)le  cause.'"'  Necessity  can  alone  san<-- 
tion  it  in  any  case,  and  then  it  must  he  strictly  t-onunen- 
surate  with  the  vis  iniijor  ijroducinj.'  it.''"  If  a  master  devi- 
iitcs  from  tile  usual  course  of  his  vovajre,  and  damaire  is 
caused  l)y  a  tempest,  in  itself  the  act  of  (iod,  the  proxi- 
mate cause  of  the   loss   is  the   wrongful  act  of  the   master, 


t 


«  Hart  V.  Alloii.  i  Watts.  11.-,  (ls:{M).  ov.'rnilinjr  Bell  v.  R«m'(1,  t  Uiiiti. 
127  (IHIO);  New  Hniiiswick  Steam   Navigation  Ci>.  v.  Tit.Ts.  2J   X.  .F 
(Law)  Oil'  (isr,:«). 

"■''  Browne  on  ( 'ar.  !I5. 

<«  Kead  v.  Spauhliiifj. ;{()  N.  Y.  ():«)  (ls(il),  dissenting  from  Morrison  v. 
Davis.  20  Pa,  St.  171  (1S.52). 

« Morrison  v.  Davis,  snpm:  Hailroad  Co.  v.  Keeves,  10  Wall.  17(i 
(iSfiO) ;  D.Miny  V.  .Vew  Yc.rk  Cent.  H.  Co.,  i:t  (Jrav.  4S1  (18.^)0) :  lloadley 
V.  Xortliern  Transportation  Co..  II.",  .Mass.  .-iOl  (\^1A)  ;  McClarv  v.  SioiLX 
City  *e.  K.  Co..  :t  \el>.  A\  (ls7:{). 

««  Bond  V.  The  Cora.  2  I'et.  Adm.  WTA  (1.S07;. 

8^  Maryland  Ins.  Co.  v.  I.e  Koy.  7  Crauoh,  ;.G  (1812). 


[| 


cir.  I.] 


INTHorUf'TIiiN. 


l» 


iiiul  li(^  is  rcspoiisihlc  fill*  it.''"'  'I'lic  saim"  rule  iipplics  to 
nirrirrn  l)y  land.''"  If  a  caiTicr  has  ajjrt'cd  to  sciul  j^oods  l»y 
land,  and  In-  si'inls  tlirni  l»y  water,'"  or,  if  he  has  a^irccd  to 
rarry  t hcin  l»y  canal,  and  he  takes  ihcin  out  to  sea,"'  and 
they  are  lost  l>y  act  of  (lod,  he  is  liai)le.  So,  if  he  ajrn'es 
to  si'iid  them  hy  one  line  of  hoats  and  sends  them  Uy 
another.'-'  The  luirden  of  showing;  a  necessity  for  a  devia- 
tion rests  upon  the  eai'i'ier ;''  and  the  neeessity  must  he  real, 
and  not  merely  apparent."'  If  lln"  (h'viiition  Is  oidy  for  the 
convenience  of  th«'  carri«'r,  he  assumes  the  risk  of  any  loss 
that  may  occur,  and  becomes  an  insurer  at  all  events. '•'' 
Hut  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier,  in  an  unforseen  emer<j;en('y, 
wIk^u  the  safety  of  the  jroods  reipiires  it,  and  when  the  eon- 
sent  of  the  owner  may  fairly  he  presumed,  to  deviute  from 
the  letter  (»f  his  instructions,  and,  if  possihie,  to  notify  tho 
owner  of  such  deviation.'"  If  a  carrier  has  a^jroed  to  send 
«roods  hy  a  particular  lim^  of  l)oats,  and  the  owner  of  the 
boats  I'cfuses  t(.  receive  them,  the  carrier  should  advis<'  the 
(»wner  of  the  <r«)ods  of  that  fact,  depositing  them  in  a  wanv 
house  if  need  be,  and  should  wait  for  further  instructions," 
And  a  cari'ier  i^'  bound  to  follow  tlu!  instructions  of  his  em- 
ployer as  to  the  sele»'tion  of  cari'iers  beyond  his  own  route.'" 
It  has  b«'en  said  thai    if  a  loss  occurs  after  a  deviation,  and 


"'  Stc  iipiiiiiiii  (  f  Tiiidiill.  ('.  .1..  in  Davis  v.  (iarn'tl.i;  Bin^.  7Hi  (is;i()) ; 
Aii^.  nil  Car.,  sees.  -JIW-l;  Slnry  tin  Hail.,  see.  Ii;i. 

«■'  rowers  V.  Davciiiiorl,  7  HIackf.  I'.MI  (lSir») :  r.awn'iicc  v.  Mc(ir(><;(>r. 
Wri^rla,  r.«  (ls:!;{):  l'liilii|.s  v.  Hrijiiiaiii.  JC  (ia.  fll"  (ls.V.>). 

■•  lii-jalls  V.  HriMiks.  Kd.  Scl.  V:i<.  KM  nsi.")), 

■I  llaiul  V.  Kayn.'s.  1  Wiiarl.  2(11  (is:ts). 

■    .r..liiis,,ii  V.  New  Yolk  Cent  K.  Co..  :n  \.  V.  fiin  (ISfi,-)), 

•'  I.L'  Sajrc  V.  (iivMi  Wcstciii  I{.  Co..  1  t)aly.  MW  ClSfCJ):  Aoklcy  v.  Kcl- 

lon;;;,  S  (  'o\v.  '2'2'.\  I  IS'JS). 

'*  llaiiil   V.  Ila\  lie*,  .tiiiivir. 

"••  .Foliiisoii  V.  New  Yolk  Cfiit.  K.  Co..:»:t  \.  Y.  tllO  (ISO.")),  rovprsiiiy; 
•s.  »•.. :{]  llarlt.  I'.M)  (ls,"»7j ;  Saf^cr  v.  I'orisinonlii  Ac.  K.  Cd.,  HI  Me.  22S 
(1S.-.0). 

"«  [hid. 

"  IhiiL;  Fisk  v.  Ncwinn.  1  l)('nlo.  I.")  (IS-I.")) ;  Story  on  Bail.,  sec.  .")4:{:, 
(Joodriili  V.  Thotiipsoii.  It  \.  Y.  Ml  (IS71). 

'"  .loliiisoii  V.  N.-w  York  Cent.  ]{.  Co..  X.i  S.  Y.  (ilO  (180,5). 


i*j 


V 


K»r-,,ipimitimii:'-m:.} 


14 


THK  COXTRACTS  OK  CAURIKRS. 


[nr,  r. 


*! 


the  ciirricr  (•;in  -liosv  that  a  loss  must  have  (■(•rlainl\  oc- 
furivcl  had  there  l)eeii  no  deviation,  tiie  carrier  shall  l)e 
excused  :'■'  luit  it  is  ditKcult  to  see  how  such  pnxtf  would  i)e 
possilile. 

§  12.  Dull/ <if  ('(irrii'r  to  Premn-i'c  GooiIh  Ihoiuttird  Inf 
Act  of  (rod. — Where  the  loss  -ustained  h\  the  act  of  (Jod 
is  not  a  total  one,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  preserve 
such  portions  of  the  jrooih  as  may  still  |)osses.s  some  com- 
mercial value.""  And  he  must  show  that  he  afterwards 
(h'livered  them  to  the  coiisiirnee  without  any  further 
damaire,"' or  that  ho  has  used,  actively  and  eiieriretically, 
i;P'  h  means  to  save  them  as  prudent  and  skilful  men  eii- 
ira<ved  in  his  l)usiness  miirht  faii-ly  he  expected  to  use  undei' 
like  circumstau'ies.'*'-  Thus,  for  illustration,  if  iroods  are 
■wet  dui-inu-  a  storm,  the  carrier  must  open  them  :ind  diy 
them  T'  or  if  his  vessel  is  wholly  disahled,  he  must  use  his 
utmost  exertions  to  tran>port  or  send  the  irootls  forward  to 
the  port  of  delivery,  even  thouirh  he  have  to  hire  another 
vessel  for  that  purpose."'  In  any  event,  the  carrier  will 
always  he  answerable  for  that  amount  of  the  (himage  whit'li 
is  the  result  of  his  ov.-n  want  of  diliirence."^'" 

§  18.  The  Piih/ic  Eiu'iiii,'. — Coiinnon  carriers  are  not  I'c- 
spoiisihle  for  losses  caused  hy  ihe  "kiiiix's  enemies,"  /.  f.  the 
public  enemy.  Public  encmii's  are  those  with  whom  the 
nation  or  State  is  at  open  war,  and  pirates  on  th«'  liii:li 
soas.'*'     But  ii  loss  by  thieves  or  robbers,"'  or  by  embezzle- 


11 


'9  Miighec  V.  Ciuncl'^n  &c.  ^^.  Co..  ».'>  X.  Y.  .">!  I  (1871). 

'^'^  Crul},'  V.  Childress.  Peck.  L>70  (182;i). 

>'^  Day  V.  Jlidh'v.  10  Vt.  4S  (ISM). 

^-' Kailroiul  Co.  v.  Fifcvcs,  K)  Wall.  17i;  flsi;'.));   N';i<livlll.'  ^^tl•.  H.  Co.  v 
David.  (!  Ficisk.  JOl   (IS7h. 

■'*■'' Ciioiroaiix  v.  I.cccli.  IS  !';i.  St.  l'lM  (  |s,-,|). 

''^Thf  .M.i.ir^rif  llaiiniiniid.  '.)  Wall.  Ili.'i  (is(iii). 

'^'^  FaiilkiuT  V.  Wri;rlit.  Klcc  107  (IsiS). 

"'Cliitty  on  Car..  :;7.   .Icrciiiy   on  Car..  :tl:  Stnry  on  Bail.,  sec 
52(»;  Aujj.  on  (  ar..  sciMilM);  ;t  Kfnt"<  Ooin.  21(i.  2'.l!». 

'"'Co-rgs  V.  Kernard.  2  Ld.  |{ay.  mill  (17(i:t);  Aug.  on  C.ir..  sim 
Boon  v.  Tiie  Bt'lfa«l.  40  Ala.  1H4  (IstJtJ;;  IIM  v.  Clienev.  ;tii  .\. 
(1857). 


S.  i)IL'. 

.  2011: 

II.  Ji; 


•'-a'-**aSi«i»i*,..5; 


fH.   I.] 


INTUODUCTIOX. 


16 


niciil,"'^  or  l)v  riotiTs  or  iiisurucnts,"*'  is  not  witliiii  the  excep- 
tion, unless  llie  iusurrei'tioii  a.ssinnes  liie  niiijiiiitude  of  an 
inteniiitional  war,  as  was  the  easi'  in  the  hite  civil  war  in 
this  country.''"  Hohherv  on  a  river  where  the  tide  ebbs 
and  flows  is  not  a  loss  fi-oni  the  i)ul)lic  enemy,  thouirh  an  act 
of  Conui-ess  may  have  provided  that  such  a  rohhery  shall 
be  deemed  pii-acy.'''  If  a  loss  i)y  a  i)ublic  enemy  is  incurred 
throujrh  the  ncirliu'ence  of  the  carrici-,  he  will  l)e  liable.''''' 
The  "kinii's  (•ii(Mni<'s""  iuchide  tiie  enemies  of  the  sovereign 
<^)f  the  pei'son  t'xccutiiii:'  the  bill  of  lading.'" 

§  14.  Ao.sw.s  ( 'miscil  hi/  l)ilt('r(nd  iJcfccIs  hi  (roods  (Jor- 
)•/'>'</. — ( 'ai-ricrs  ;ire  not  liabli'  for  losses  arising  from  the 
ordinary  wca'-  and  tear  of  goods  in  the  coui'se  of  transport- 
ation, nor  foi'  their  ordinaiv  deterioration  in  (juantity  or 
(piality,  noi  for  their  iidierent  natui'al  intii'inity  or  tendency 
to  ilam.'ige  ;  and  this  i-ule  includes  the  decay  of  fruits,  the 
diminution,  leakage,  or  evapoiMtion  of  1'  uids.  and  the 
spontaneous  coml)Ustion  of  goods.  In  all  such  cases, 
Aviu're  the  negligenc*'  of  the  carrier  does  not  co-operate  in 
the  loss,  lie  will  l)e  excused.'''  This  exctiption  also  includ(!.s 
all  injuries  done  l»y  living  animals  to  themselves  and  to  each 
other;   los>t's   that    are  cansi'd   bv  theii'  inherent   vices  and 


^^S.-liicffi'liii  V.  Hiiivfy.  t!  ,l.,tiii..  17(1  (ISIO);  Wiitkinson  v.  Ltiiifihtou, 
s  .lnliM<.  -Jl:)  (  |sil  1  :    |,(.\v;s  V.  I.ii.lvi  i.-k.  ()  Coldw.  :<S(i  (ISIIll). 

-'■'('uirirs  V.  Ucriiard.  xk/i/v/;   Kdi'wanl  v.  l^ittaiil,  1  'rt-nii  Hep.  '27  (178.')). 

■•"'Iliitihanl  V.  llariidcn  Kxpn-ss  Co..  1«  K.  1..  -J.")!  (187-i) :  Smith  v. 
Brazi'ltitii.  1  llci<k.  I!  (|s7(i);   F><"*i,*  v.  lyiKlwick.  .si(/jra. 

•"Tlif  Hi'lfa^t  V.  H(M)ii,  tl  Ala.  .V»    |S(;7j. 

'•*■- Amic-  V.  Stt'vi'iis.  t   Strang'.  12S  rJ71s);  Forward  v.  I'iltard,  .vw/i/vr. 

'••■•'' Uu-«i'll  V.  Niriiiaii.  17  ('.  H..  \.  .S.  imt    ISCij. 

'•''Story  o;i  IJail..  -im-.  Wi  ,i;  ;{  K.Mifs  Cotii.  2!>ll-:{<!i  :  Hiistili;;-;  v.  I't  p- 
p<'r.  1 1  I'it'k.  II  ( isitl ) :  ( 'liilty  oii  ( '  ii .  1 1 :  Hrowucoii  <  ar.  10;{;  Aiijf.  on  Car. 
SIT. -ill:  Tilt'  Coll.'iilxTir.  1  151a.  U.  17(»  (ISOl).  Losses  of  this  kind  :iro 
soMU'tiincs  spoken  of  as  hcinir  caused  hy  the  act  of  (roij.  Browne  on  Car. 
102:  Warden  v.  <ireer.  O  Watt-,  Vll  (ls;{7);  hut  the  action  of  Nature 
caiisiniT  tlie  loss  is  iieithi'r  sudden,  violent ,  noi' Irresistible.  It  does  not, 
tlieiefore.  fall  within  any  delinilion  oi  the  act  of  God.  Sec  Hail  v,  Ken- 
fn..  ;<  Mete.  (Ky.)  .")l  (18<J(I). 


s;sg 


■"m-vivwmm-'^'f 


k; 


THK  CONTKACTS  <  )1'  fAIUMKRS. 


[cii.  I. 


UN' 


I 


i? 


nroi)ci>>;iti(-<."' '^md  wliidi  (•xciisc  the  cMiTifi'  if  lii-  iicLrli^Tt'iice 
(Iocs  not  concur  in  causinii' tliciii.  "' 

§  1').  Linl.illlii'K  of  ('(irrli'i'fi  of  /\issf'}i//rrs. — A  cMfricr 
of  passcnjrors  for  liirc  i>  not  like  a  coinnioM  can-icr  of  i^oods 
an  insurer  airainst  cvcrylliinir  ''Ut  the  act  of  (iod  and  tlio 
j)ul>lic  cnoniv.  He  is  liound,  liowcvcr,  to  tlic  use  of  tlic 
utmost  <arc  in  the  prov  idinir  <>f  safe  and  sulHcicnt  veliicies 
and  means  of  transportation  and  in  tlicir  inanai.''enient .  ' 

§  1().   J^i(il)ilili<'x  of  ( '(irrii'i's  dj'  Aninni/s. — As  tlicti'iins- 
portation  of  iivin;;  aniinals  was  uni\no\vn   to  the  era  of  the 
formation  of  the  coii'nion  hiw,  it  lias  l»ccn   much  d«'hated  as 
to  whctlier  persons  enirairinir  in  tiiis  l)ii-ine>>  assunu'  all  the 
liahilities  of  common  carriers  or  not .      Mr.  Justice  Wim,i;s 
reirardcd  the  tiuestion  as  heinu:  prohaldy  one  of  words,   it 
hoinjr  muc^h  the  same  thin<r  to  say  that   cari'iers  of  animals, 
are  not  comiium  curriers,  and  to  say  that   they  are  common 
carriers,  with  tiie  modification  that   they  are  not    liable   f(»r 
any  damajre  or  loss  <rrowin;r  out  of  the  vic«'s  oi-  propensities 
of   the  animals  carried/"     The  (|uestion   is.  howevei-,  very 
important,  since  it  affects  that  of  the  hui'ilen  (-f  pi'oof  ;  and 
because  it   follows  that,  if   such  <'arriers  are   not    connnon 
carriers,  th(>v  are  not  liaide  for  any  damaire  or  loss  not  oc- 
(■asioned  in   some  way  by  their  own   want  of  -kill  and  ca!-<', 
tluuiirli  sneh  tiama;^e  or  loss  may  not   fall    within  an\  of  the 
exceptions  made  by  law  to  the  lial»ilitie-  of  cdiinnon  eai'riei>. 


'•'■■•  Anir.  I'll  Cm-.,  -cc.  214;  .Miilii},',iii  K.  Co.  v.  .M(|)ihimii;,'|i.  Jl  Midi.  Id,*) 
(1S7(I):  I.iilif  Slinic  H.  t».  V.  I'tTkiiis.  25  Mi.h.  :{2l)  ,  |s72i :  Kansas  I'a.'. 
H.  Co.  V.  Kcyiicilds.  s  K:i+-.  lii';!  (|s7!i;  (ircai  Wc-tnii  \{.  Cu.  v.  IJiuw- 
••r.  20  W.  U.  77(i  JS72). 

*('larkpv.  KncliPstdiVc.  It.  Co..  1 1  \.  ^  .  :i7(i  <  ls.">(l) :  oliin  a..  H.  ("o.  v. 
I)iiiil)ar.  2it  III.  "lj:t  |S."(Si  ;  Smiili  v.  New  HavciiAc  |{.('«i..  12  Allfii.  .Vtl 
(iscd):  Mali  V.  Hi'iifru.  mipni;  K\:\u<  v.  l-'iirliliiirirh  |{.  Co..  Ill  Mas<.  I  12 
(!S72,i:  CuiiiriT  V.  IIikNoii  KImt  1{.  Co..  c.  Diht.  :17.".  (|S.*>7):  hari'l-  v. 
XortlM'niiV:r.  |{.  Co..  2ll  \.  V.  2.12  js.v.i,  ;  |'o\M.|l  V.  I'l'iiii-yhiiiia  |{.  (  o.. 
:<2  I'a.  .St.    HI   (IS.V.I1:   East    Tciiii. •>>,■.■  \c.  H.  Co.    v.   Wliiitlc.  27  (ia. 

.*);i.">  ris,v.i)  :\Vci<-ii  V.  I'itishmir  \c.  |{.  (  ....  10  Ohio  St.  i;.-i  ,  is.v.m. 

*^Siiiiaioiis  V    New  Bedford.  Ac.  K.  Co..   17  .Ma»-.  iti'd  ( 1S(;7) ;  siory  oii 
Hailiiii'iils.  <vr.  ."I'.iO. 
■"^(M-cat  \Vc<ti'rii  K.  Co.  v.  HIowit.  .'m  \V.  |{.  77iI     |S72). 


I 


'i 


CII   I.] 


INTRODUCTION. 


17 


111  Kii<:liiiKl,  carriers  of  liviiiir  aiiiiiiuls  are  not  coiisidort'd  as 
t'oiniiinii  carriers  ;""  aiitl  if  a  horse  is  injured  while  it  is  in 
ifMiisit  l)y  rail,  and  the  cause  of  the  injury  is  unknown,  the 
iiijurv  will  he  presumed  to  have  come  aitout  throujrh  the 
proper  vice  of  the  animal,  it  heiiiif  shown  ImjIIi  that  it  was 
(|uiel  and  accu-tiniied  to  travel  hy  rail,  and  that  no  accident 
had  occurreil.  :  anythiiiir  likely  to  alai'in  it.""'  In  Ken- 
tucky the  st rinjrc ney  of  th(*  common-hiw  rule  does  not  apply 
to  cMiricrs  of  li\e  stock:  they  are  not  insurers.  Hut,  in 
case  of  injury  t<>  such  live  >lock,  the  leiral  presumption, 
pr'niKt  f'iicU\  is  that  it  was  caused  l>y  the  iieiiliiTence  of  the 
cMiricr.'"'  Ill  Micliii:aii,  carriers  of  aiiiiiiiils  are  not  re- 
i::irdc(|  ;is  common  <'arriers,  unless  they  have  expressly 
assumed  the  respoii>il>iliiies  of  common  curriers  l»v  sjiecial 
con!  r;ict .'"-'  lint  in  most  of  the  Sliiles  carriers  of  liviiic  aii- 
im;ils  arc  lici>l  to  lie  common  carriers,  \\\\i\  to  he  insurers  to 
I  he  sMiMc  extent  as  if  eiiiiaired  in  carryiiii;'  <x«'neral  mer- 
chandi-c.  suhject  to  the  explanation  contained  in  the  preced- 
\\vi  sections  as  to  loss  op  dmnaire  caused  hy  the  animals  to 
ihcHiselves   and   to   each  other.'"'      Where  the  animals  are 


'"  .M(  ^i.lllu-  \.  I,;iiuM«liiru  .  ■•.  R.  ('....  -l  II.  i^i  \.  (!!i;{  ilsr.S);  McManns 
V.  I,  Ml.  ,>liii.  A.-.  H.  (",,..  J  II  ,v  X.  ;i2><  (l.s.V.D:  Cw\-  v.  Limcashirt'  &c. 
K.  Cm..  7  lls.ii.  71:!  IS.VJ):  I'alincr  v.  (iraiid  .liiiu'liuii  It.  (."o..  4  M. 
\  W.  7  r.i  iviiii :  l'anliiiy:ton  v.  .SoutJi  Walt-  1{.  Co.  ;(S  ICiijr.  Law  i<:  Ki|. 
|{.|).  I  ;l'    IvM;    .    Mirhiiraii  |{.  C...  v.  McDdiionjrli.  -Jl  Midi  Ki.")  (1S70). 

"'"'  K.M.iaii  V.  I icii  i;.  ( ',..  I..  |{.  7  i:\-.  :{7;i  (  1s7l'). 

i"i  I.MiiiMill.'  iVr.  W.C.I.  V.  Hi-.ly:.T.  It  Hiisli.(M.-.   (IS7:{);   Mall  v.   Kcn- 

lln.  .;    Mrli'.   (  K\  .     .-.I      IN(II). 

I -Lake  Slii.r.'  \c.  i:.  Cm  v.  I'crkin-i. -J.')  Midi.  :!Jii  ( |s7-_>  > .  iiviTniliii;; 
Mi.'ii.  Ai'.  |{.  Cu.  V.  II  .!.■.  i;  Mi.h.  Ji;!  d^''''*'-  and  (iivat  Wc-ilcrii  K. 
Cii.   \.  llawKiii-.  IS  Mi.h.   l-'7     |M«;:i). 

"■'Kimliall  v.  Iiiiilaii<i  \.'.  K.  <■•..  -ji!  Vl.  217  is.Vt) :  .Xirii.-w  v.  The 
Ctiiiira  Cii-la.  •J7(  al.  I-J."i  l««i.">  :  .\idti».ui,  \c.  It.  Cu.  v.  \Va<lilmni.  .">  N'ch. 
117  Is7il  :  Kaii-a-  Af.  It.  ♦"••.  v.  ItcviioliN.  s  Ka-.  HJ;}  ils7n:  Kansas 
\.-.  |{.  C...  V.  NiclnilN.  SCKj.-.  i•.\:^  \  1S7J  :  Itil/  v.  I'fiiii^.vlvaiiia  It.  Co..  W 
I'liila.  s-_>  is.-,Mi :  Cra;rin  \.  .NVw  YoikiV:.-.  It.  Co. .M  \.  V.ci  (IS7-J) :  IVnn 
V.  Miifta^'Ac.  K.Co..  »!C\.  Y.ilH  (IS7J):  Myiianl  v.  .Syraciist- \c.  It. Co. 
Ill  Alli.  I,.  J.  SX\\  s.r..  7  lliiii.  ;(!>!•  (is7i;  I :  Ccnnan  \.  Cliicairo  iV:f.  It. 
Co..  lis  Inwa.  irr  dST-t):  McCoy  v.  Keokuk  i^^c  It.  Co..  H  Iowa.  .|-24 
(187ti):   VVil«.M   v.  Ilainiltoii.  J  Oliio  ,St.  722  (IM.Vn:  WcUh  v.  I'ittshurg 


tmmmmmsm-^r^tr^fnmtl 


^rr 


18 


tup:  roNTWACTs  of  cahhieks. 


[en.  I. 


IS 


killed  iiiulcr  ciiruinstaiiccs  cxoiicralinjr  the  carrior,  ho  is  not 
liable  for  not  (Iclivcrinir  tiu'ir  carcasses.'"* 

§  17,  Ao.w.v  Cittisfil  hi/  Si'lznro  lonlcr  I'rociss. —  A  car- 
rier is  not  liable  t'oi'  iroods  taken  out  of  his  hands  hy  le-ral 
process."'-'  Where  iroods  are  attached  in  the  hands  of  a 
conunon  carrier,  he  can  not  iiive  them  up  to  t'he  consi<rnee 
while  the  ataelnnent  is  pendin^f.""  In  such  case  the  carrier 
is  not  ans\verai)ie.  even  thouirh  the  iidods  have  been  at- 
tached for  the  del)t  of  a  third  pei'son,  and  under  a  proceed- 
iiur  to  wiiich  tiie  employer  of  tin-  carrier  is  not  a  party. 
The  riirht  of  the  otficci'  to  hold  tlic  iioods  can  only  be  de- 
terniined  bv  the  conit  liavinir  jurisdiction  of  the  attaclnnent 
suit.  The  remedy  (d"  tln'  l)ail(tr.  for  an  illepd  seizure  of 
his  <roods  for  the  ih-ltt  of  another,  is  not  ajrainst  the  cari'ier, 
but  a^'ainst  the  otlicer  iiiakin<r  the  seizure,  or  airainst  the 
phiintit^in  the  atta<hirj«nt.  if  he  directed  the  scizui'c.'"'    Hut, 

&o.  K.  <;<>..  lit  Oliio  St.  (i.'i  is.v.t  :  St.  1,1.111-  iV.!'.  |{.  (  u.  v.  Doniiaii.  72 
111.  504(1  S74):  Simlli  Aliilmuiia  iV.-.  H.  Co.  v.  Il*>iilfiii.  .'.J  Ala.  fiOO  (is;.")) ; 
Kixfdnl  V.  .Siiiitli.  ."i2  X.  II.IU".  (ls72):  (  larkr  v.  U(icIicsI)t\c.  K.  Co.  II 
N.  Y.  7.")<»  (ls.">(l  ;  OiiioAc  H.  Co.  v.  Ihiiiliar.  2(i  III.  rcii  ils.Vs-;  Siniili  v. 
yew  Haven  \-c.  K.  Co..  12  .Mien.  .'.:tl  (|M;r,  :  Kvaiis  v.  I'lidilpiir^r  |{.  c,,.. 
m  Mas<.  112  (1S72  :  Coii-r'-r  v.  Ilii>l«.ii  HIv<t  }{.  Co.  (I  Diht.  :?7.') 
(18.")7,  :  llaiTi>  v.  NoimIi.mii  \.  .  H.  Co..  20  \.  V.  2:t2  (IS.V.I):  rowcll  v. 
Pennsylvania  H.  Co.,  ;i2  I'a.  St.  Ill  Is.V.ti:  Ka-t  rciiiic<-ec  \c..  |{. 
Co.  v.  Whittle.  27  <ia.  ."ill.'i  (|s."i!i).  Tlie  <;irriei  i»  iT<|)oii-itile  for  any  in- 
jury wiiich  can  he  pi'evented  hy  fdre-ijrlii.  vi;rilanci'.  ami  care.  altlioii;;|i 
arisiiijffrnin  the  condnci  of  the  animal-.  ( 'larke  \.  I{o(iie«icr  i^c.  I{.  Co.. 
supvd. 

"<  I.e..  V.  Marsh.  2K  How.  j'r.  27.">  i  ls(i|i. 

"■Stile- V.  Iliivis.  I  Black.  |(ll  (IMIh:  Uliven  v.  Ilml^on  River  {{.  Co.. 
:<(>  \.  Y.  |(i:i  I  |s(;7  :  Hliven  v.  IliuNon  Kivcr  |{.  Co.. :!.-.  ISarh.  I^s^isiii); 
Villi  Winkle  V.  Iniieil  stales  Mail  Co..  ;t7  Uarh.  122  I>il2  :  KiirKm  v. 
WilkiiiMiii.  is  \t.  Ist;  ilSKij:  Ohio.  \,  \{.  c,,.  \.  ^■(,hc.  .-.i  |i„l.  1^1 
(lS7r.). 

"^  Stile-  V.  l)avi-.  »/-(■  sKin-ii;  \ciiall  v.  l{ohinson.  i'\  ru  .  |(h;!I:  .v.  <•..  | 
Dowl.  I'.  C.  242:  .v.  /..  2  Cn.mi.,  M.  i\:.  K.  r.i.">  ,  IM!.-.).  •  It  would  he  ali- 
snrd  for  the  law  to  |inni-h  a  hi.ni  for  not  doin;.'- or.  in  other  words  to 
rf'C|nire  liini  todo  — th.ii  whj.h  It  foihid-  his  doiii;;."  2  I'ars.  on  Con. 
fi74.  ••  If  a  coach  he  daniaired  hy  ii  cinier"-  fault,  whatever  i<  lo<t  he 
shall  he  coin|iellcd  to  make  ifood.  unless  the  injiny  lia|.|.rii<  hy  the  act  of 
God.  or  («/ //ic /(/K/.  and  \vliate\cr  does  not  -o  ha|i|)en  ileiiotes  a  fault." 
2  C<ilehn)ke"s  Dijj.  Hiiidn  Law.  272. 

'"'  Stiles  V.  Davis,  nupra. 


'■jiwtiwii'laaili  umi 


T 


en.  I.] 


INTItODt  CTIOV. 


19 


wliiii  >ii(li  ;i  sciziifc  is  iiiinic,  tli<'  cMnifi"  must  itiiriicdiatcly 
notify  lii.il  r.'Ki  t(»  tlic  coiisiLriior.""'  'I'lic  ciirricr  iniist 
••issiiri'  lii:ii-i'ir  tli.il  the  proccctliiiiis  iimlcr  wh'cli  tin-  si'izuro 
is  iiiii'Ic  ni'c  rcLiiilar  iiii<l  xalid  :  liiil  lie  "s  not  Ixxnid  to  liti- 
i;;ili'  for  ii;  -  imiloi',  ii(»i-  to  sliow  llmt  I  lie  decision  of  tlu' 
roiiri  i->iiinL;'  iIh-  process  is  (■(HTcct  in  l;nv  or  fact.'""  And  he 
is  nol  lioniid  lo  assert  tlietilli'  of  the  haih)r,  nor  to  foUow 
the  u'oods."" 

^  I'S.  lUsi-nrildiif  I h'rlxliiiis. —  In  a  ease  (U'cided  in  Kn<i- 
land  a)  nisi  /irnts,  liy  I^ord  I'j.t.KNnoijoiuiH,  in  l-SOH,'"  jv 
vessel  had  l>een  detained  and  conih'iiuied  in  elaniai<ui  for  it 
ill-each  of  revenue  laws;  hiit  on  apjieal  the  c(»ndeninati()ii 
was  revei'sed.  It  wa-i  lield  llial  the  master  was  lialile  for  !i 
loss  caused  l»y  tlie  delay,  the  court  sayinj;:  "  Vou  have  an 
action  a;raiiist  ilie  ollicers.  The  shipper  can  only  look  to 
the  owner  or  master  of  a  ship."  This  hist  proposition  is 
ch'ai'ly  wroiiLT.  We  do  n(tt  find  the  case  cited  in  any  hitc 
Kniili>li  work  on  Cai-riers.  and  it  is  no  douht  re<jrarded  as 
had  law.  linl  in  a  late  case  in  .Massachusetts  it  wa."-  Ik^KI 
that,  in  a  suit  aifainst  a  common  carrier  for  nou-doHv(!ry 
()(  Lidod-.  it  is  iKi  defense  to  say  that  they  were  taken  from 
the  earlier  l)y  an  ollieer  under  an  attachment  a<;aiiKst  aii_y 
one  who  was  not  their  owner."-' 

§  ill.  /yo.s'.s/ ,s'  c(ii(si'<l  1)1/  Act  or  Omission  (if  Oivncr. — It  is 
clear  thai    if  the  owner  of  the   iroods  should   direcll v  do  an 


'  ohi.i.  \,-.  IJ.  Cc.  V.  V.ilii'.  Kiij'.-n;  Itlivcii  v.  Hiidsoii  Itivcr  |{.  Co., 
Kiiji,:i :  Sc'i:m!(iin  \.  l'"Mrriii'r-'  l!;iiiU.  :.' 1  N.  Y.  t'JI(lS(fJ). 

I"  Mlivfii  V.  Iliiil-iiii  KiviT  K.Ci...  ■',.")  IJ.nli.  iss  (isiil). 

"  Oliiii  \i\  i;.  ('(I.  V.  ^■|lll(•.  >•///)/■,/.  WlhTf  a  vessel  was  ilciaiiicd  l>y  :i 
!;'!Ii;ar\  niliicr.  it  was  lirlil  iliai  ilir  hwiut  of  it  wa»  net  .'mswcriililc  for  ii 
|n«s  \iy  ii-a-^iiii  of  a  fall  of  |)rii'c<  of  ;;(i(i(ls  on  Imai'il  diifiii^  the  pcr'Kul  of 
ilrlciitioii.  li.-  Iiaviiiu''  yiflili'ij  only  to  a  force  wliidi  lie  coiiltl  not  resist. 
Til"  OiiiM-i.  I  n,-\i.  nil  (ISliT). 

"'  tei-limr  V.  Hi^;:iii<.  1  ('amp.  IM. 

11-  KcluaiiU  V.  While  Line  I'lan-il  Co..  1(11  Mass.  l.".!l  (|S7()).  The 
conn  u.iii  a-^tiay  on  the  inrlcvant  ami  nlistra<'l  (|m'stloii  as  lo  whether, 
when  |i  |n-o|ieily  of  A  i-  ailarlicd  as  tlit'  |ii-o|i('rly  of  U.  it  is  iti  the 
en»loi|\  <  the  law  a<  to  A.  Tlii- 1  a«i'  is  rciiiarkiilile  for  si  very  ineffeetual 
iM'iiii'i^ih  on  Siilc^  V.  I)avis.  .•lujirit. 


tf^HBR 


20 


Tlir.  CONTItAOTS  or  CAIMMKIiS. 


[cn.  I. 


injury  to  lln'iii  wliilf  in  tlic  liantis  of  tin-  ciinici-.  l!i«'  lalttT 
could  not  III"  made  .•niswcialilc  lor  -iicli  iiijiirv.  Sii.li  a  case 
\h  not  like  to  o<-cin' :  Itiit  <"i-«cs  do  oficii  occiii-  vlicn-  tin-  loss 
or  daina<r<i  to  the  i^oods  would  not  li:i\''  Ix'cu  inlii'tt-d  if  the 
owner  had  done  cvcrvlliin.-'  lliat  lie  ouiiiit  to  have  done. 
Tlui  question  in  such  cases  is  wiictlicr  the  owner  Inniself  -o 
far  eontnl)uled  to  llie  niisforluiie,  l»y  :,i>  own  iie:iiip'nce  or 
want  of  ordinary  cai-c  and  cantion.  ti.:il  Inil  I'i'r  -u-Ii  iie«:li- 
gonoo  or  want  of  care  and  caution  oii  liis  par;  tlic  nii.-lor- 
tune  would  not  have  hapix'neil.'" 

§  20.  CoiKTdh/ifiif  of  \'(tliii'  or  Qinilil;/. — The  carrier 
has  a  liirht  to  know  the  \aine  of  liic  piods.  so  that  he  may 
know  what  risk  he  take- on  hini-cli';  what  care  In- shouhl 
exercise,  and  what  clt:;rp'  he  .-liouhl  UiaKc.  The  owner  is 
not  hound  to  stale  the  vahie  inde.-s  lie  is  a  keil  to  do  so.'" 
l)Ut  if  he  is  asked  tlie  \aliic.  he  nni  t  answer  truly."'' 
Neither  nujst  the  owner  nii>lead  the  carrier  liy  makiiiiLi'  him 
underestimate  the  value  of  the  L;(>ods,  even  lliont:h  no  <|Ue>— 
tions  ai'c  asked  ;  as  hv  sendin<:'  a  laru'c  sum  of  money  con- 
cealed in  a  hair  of  liay,'"'  or  placed  in  a  liox  with  arlidc^s  of 
small  value,"' or  by  sendinjra  diamond  rini^  in  a  small  paper 
l)Ox  tied  with  a  slrinii,"'^  or  hy  sendin'j:  \alual»le  jewelry 
under  any  circumstances  which  woidd  naturally  lead  the 
carrier  to  supposes  it  to  he  of  hut  trilling;'  \alue  :"'  and  if  he 
does  thus  mislead  the  carrier,  and  the  iioods  are  afterwards 

"^  Railroad  Co.  v.  .Ioiic<.  li.")  I'.  S.  i:?0;  0  fciil.  I,.  .1.  i:i  nsrri. 

'"  llrooko  V.  I'ickwirk.  I  IJinii-. -Jls  (is-j;.;  Soinhi'in  Kniht-^  ( 'n.  v. 
Crook,  11  Ala.  |()S  (|S7(»);  (;Mrliaiii  Mf^.  Co.  \ .  l':ii-;;o.  \:>  \\,,.\.  pr. '.in 
(1S7:));  CamdiMi,  &.v.  |{.  Co.  v.  Italilaiif.  M  I'a.  Si.  (17  l>".l  :  Kril  v. 
K:il)p.  :{  W.  \  S.  -Jl  (ISII).  and  >«■.■  fiiiilMT  y-.v.  C,i|..  |. 

"■' CaindiMi  iVi-.  H.  (Jo.  v.  Haldaiif.  iihi  siiiini;  l'liilli|K  v.  Ilailr.  s  I'irk. 
lft'2  '1S-J!():  Hoskowitz  v.  .\daiii-  Kxprcss  Co..  .".  Cent.  I,.  .1.  ."■■>  i  ls77j. 

""  Ciil)l)oii  V.  I'ayiitoii.  1  Hiin.  2-_",is  (17(llt). 

"' <;iiii'af,'o  \i\  n.  Co.  V.  Tliompsoii.  Ill  ill.  .->7s  fls.-,S):  M.i;r„iii  v. 
Diii-inorc,  C.-J  N.  Y.  ;?.")  f  I S7.". ) :  Ivnni'^t  ^.  Kxi.rcss  Co..  1  Udnd-.  ."»7:{ 
(1K7;!);  JJcljfcr  v.  Diiisiiiorc,  .">1  \.  Y.  \W  i  Is7-j). 

'"•  Kvorcit  V,  SoiitlKTii  Kxprcss  Co..  |i;  (;:i.  :(():!  MS7l>)  ;  sicii  v.  I'a;r,r, 
5  Knrn.  &  Aid.  ;U-_>  Ms-J-J). 

""  Oppeiilioiini-r  v.  I'lutcd  States  Kxi)rc.«.s  Co.,  (i!)  111.  (;2  (ls7:{). 


CM.  I.] 


INTIiODI'fTION. 


21 


,■:    l-,(; 


stolon  Of  lost,  the  carrier  is  lutt  lialilc.'-'"  In  all  cases  of 
this  kind  the  owner  is  held  to  he  i^nilty  of  const ru(;tivc 
frand,  althoui^h,  in  point  of  fact,  no  fraud  was  intended.''" 
In  further  illnsi  latioii  of  this  iniportant  rule  re(|uirin;j;  fair 
dealinir  on  ihe  pari  of  the  owner,  il  niav  l>e  nieiuioni^d  tiiiit 
if  one  seii<l>  uHass  articles  in  a  l)ox  without  inforniin<r  the 
cari'ier  of  the  iiaiui'e  of  the  articles,  and  they  ai'c  broken  ;'" 
or  sends  a  ii'nnU  laltelled  as  conlaininir  articles  of  ii  differ- 
ent ami  smaller  value  than  those  really  contained  therein, 
and  they  are  >ii)|eii  ;''■  oi-  sends  a  check  indorsed  in  Maul;  in 
a  lellci'  wiliioul  infoi-niiiii:'  the  carrier  of  the  contents  of  the 
letler.  and  I  he  letter  i.-.  stolen  :'■'  or  x-nd-^  money  in  a  pack- 
aji'e,  kuitwiui:'  that  l»y  the  rules  of  the  carrier  money- 
packaire-  ail'  rei|uirc'i  to  l)e  piii  u|»,  indorsed  and  scaled  in  a 
particular  way,  which  i-ci|iiii-ciiient  i>  di>rci:arded,  and  the 
money  i>  --lolcii.  the  can'ier  will  not  Ik-  lial)lc.'-''' 

§  '21.  /■'r'Hii!  A/ir'n/.-i  (I  liiir. —  ()lhcr  fi-auds  may  lie  onj- 
niitt>'d  l>y  lie  owiwi'  on  the  carriei-  which  will  prevent  a  re- 
covery liy  the  former  —  as  where  he  oliiains  from  one  of 
several  proprietors  of  a  coach  an  aiirccmcnt  to  carry  him- 
self, !ii^  family,  airl  iii-  ptods  on  a  con-^idcration  fi'otn 
whii'li  tlic  oihi'r  proprietors  are  to  I'crivc  no  henelit.  Such 
an  a'i'rccnicnt  is  a  fraud  a'^  lo  them,  is  not  itindinu'  on  them, 
and  will  no!  ,-iip])ort  an  ;icli(m  :;ua..i'l  them.'-'' 

i-"'IMy  V.  Moiiiic.  :t  Caiili.  |s:,  /|(i!)ii  :  'I'iiclilniriic  v.  Wiiilc,  I 
Siran;:"'.  I  !•">  (I7ts);  Kuni'^l  v.  i:\|ir-'"  C.i..  I  WomiI  ;.  r.::!  (IS7:{);  (Joxe 
V.  llcM.-,.  t'.t  I'a.  SI.  -Jl:!  ils.Vj):  ll..lli-.|<M-  \.  Xuwl.'ii.  I'.i  Wciid.  l.W 
Ms;tS):  |;v.icii  v.  Si>iiiiicrM  Kxprcis  «'<»..  IC  <;a.  ;i(t;t  ( |S7J) ;  Ciiicintiiiti 
S:r.  \\.  ('(,.  v.  Marcii-.  :;-^  111.  Jl'.i  ilsc,:,);  ili'llniMn  v.  Ildlladay.  1  VVnoiw. 
:iiiri  il-^Ci^  :  Kriniic  \.  I'^jiiici-ioii.  Alcyii.  'X\:  Oraiiirc  <'iiiiiii>'  IJaiil*  v. 
IJinwii.  M  \\i  ml.  s."i  !  ls:!-_'). 

'■■"  «'lli(:iiru    \i'.     |{.     Co.     V.  'I'llnm|).-(i||.     I'.I     III.     :.7S     ( 1  S.'.S)  ;    Cxipcr    V. 

I?i'rry.  -Jl  (ia.  ."iJC  (|->."i7i:  <;',i'al  N'lirlliiTii  I{.  Co.  v.  S1i('|iIumiI.  14 
V.W'Ji.  I.;n\  i',   iv|.  |{('|i.    1117  (  |s."ij,. 

'-  .ViniMicaii  Kxpri'^s  Co.  v.  I'laKiii-.  Vl  III.  -l.^s  (1S(;7). 

'-'  Ikcif  \ .  i'M|ip.  siifirn;  lIoilisUT  V.  Nowlcii.  sitpni. 

1^'  llayi>  V.  Wells.  '>:\  Cat.   IS.")  (lS(i:t). 

'-'■  St.  .lulm  V.  I'.Niircss  Co..  I  Woods.  (ilJ  ris71*. 

I-"''  i'.i-nnld  \.  Wali'ilioiisc.  I  Mail.  i»;  S"l. -jr^'i  (lsi;{);  .roues  v.  Situs,!) 
Port.  Jlii  (IMS'.i). 


m^ 


I  !■  i  VWiauiUMliWtBpMH 


Ml 


1(2 


TIIK  CONTHACXS  OK  CAKKIKKS. 


[CM.   I. 


'     7f 

I 


§  22.  /vfAsw.v  Causnl  hij  Xi'ijli-rl  of  On'iiir. —  If  nuods 
aro  sent  hy.i  ciirricr  without  hciiiir  lt';:il»lv  iiiiirk(>(I,  in  consc- 
quonce  of  uiiicli  tlic  owiici"  sustains  a  loss  or  inconvcnii'ncc, 
without,  any  fauh  of  the  carrier,  hi"  can  not  hohl  the  cai-ri«'i' 
bound  for  it.'^  Nor  is  the  hitler  iial)h'  for  a  hiss  occas- 
ioned I)}'  th((  ne^liirence  of  the  shippei-  in  packini^'  the 
goods. '-'^ 

§  2^5.    Oinicr    l/tnlcrfnkiii;/   /'frf  of  ( 'tirrhr's    Ditths. — 
Whore  tlie  owiiei'  liiniself  undertakes  a  part    of  the   (hities 
which  wouhl  otiierwise  dcxolvc  on  the  carrier,  llic   I'csponsi- 
hilily  for  results  growinif  out  of  the  dischai-p'  of  tiiose  du- 
ties rests  on  the  owner,  and  the  cai'i'ici'  i<   not    lialih'   in   re- 
spect thereof.      If  the  owner  of  catth'  '^oes  witii  tiicni   on  a 
railway,  undei-  an  ajzrccnient    with   the  railw:iy  company  to 
give  ((M'tain  attention  to  the  cattle,  the  company  will    not  he 
lialile  for  losses  occasioned  l>y  his   inattention   to  th<'   duties 
undeilaken  hy  iiini.'-"'     In  these  cases  there   was   ncLi'liiicnce 
on  the  pai't  of  the  owner;  hut  neirliiicnce  i-  not  a  ncces>ar\ 
clement    of  the   rule.     Thus,  if  hoirs   are   scut    in   a    car  se- 
lected hy  the  owner,  and  not  Itclon^inii'  lo  till-   cai'iicr.   and 
they  ai-e  injui'cd  l)y  reason  of  a  defect    in   -iich  c.ir.  I  lie  car- 
rier is   not    lial»!e  —  at    least,    if  ihe    defcr|    in    ;||,.   rai'  was 


not    known    to    tlie    laMc!.' 


Mere     1- 


..r   ( 


onrsc. 


-111 


stronger  reason  for  'die  aiipKnition  of  ihc  rule  who'c  the 
owner  of  cattle  niiderlakcs  |o  pnt  tlicni  on  a  c.ii-,  and  puts 
thoin  on  accoidingly,  knowini;-  the  car  to  he  nns.afe,  iind  neir- 
loeting  to  inform  the  carric-  of  Ih.at  fact,  .-iiid  a  lo>s  ocm:-, 
hy  reason  of  th(^  defect  in  the  car.'''      Iiut  if  i^oods   are  {\v- 


'■^Tlic  lliiiiticss.  I);ivic<.  S2  '  ISIII)  :  I'inu  v.  Wc-l,iii  |{.  (',).,  1()-J  >I;i„. 
2K;{  (I.Sd!)). 

'■»•  Aiii;.  on  ('Ml.,  sec.  -IVl:  KImiiIh'i-  v.  Aiiicriciin  Kxuiv^^  ('....  Jl  \VU. 
21  (]8(;(!:)   '1'Ih' Colonel  I.cil\  iii'l.  1  SiHMiriic.  WM)  I'isiiO). 

'^Sonlh  Aliiliiiinii.  i<:c.  K.  Co.  v.  Itciili'in.  .".J  Al;i.  (JO.;  (is::,) ;  r,,v,,.r  •, . 
lllioa,  &r.  n.  Co..  7  Hill,  17  (isil) ;  (;i,.||.;,,n  v.  (Joodiirh  Transpoiiatic.n 
Co..  \V1  Wis.  8,-)  (IS7:i) :   IJodciick  v.  HiiilroM.I  Co.. 7  \V.  Vii.  r,l  fl.S7:{). 

'■"  Illinois  Cent.  J{.  Co.  v.  HmII.  r,s  jjl.  loa  MS71;. 

'■"  Rett«  V.  Farnuas"  Lo:in  Co.  21  Wis.  SO  (ISOO). 


(11.  I.] 


INTUODITTIOX. 


2:\ 


livcrcd  to  a  ciirricr  in  a  storm,  and  ho  i-orcivcs  tlicni,  liin 
(•(iinnioii-law  lialtility  at  onrc  atlaclics  ; ''^  and  if  tli<' u:<)(m1s 
art"  placed  l>y  a  carrier  in  an  open  car,  wlien  they  shonid 
have  heeii  placi'd  in  a  chtsed  one.  tiie  mere  fact  that  the 
owner  knew  of  this  at  the  time  will  not  relieve  the  carrier 
from  responsihility  for  tln'ii'  safety.'''  So  an  a<xre«'ment  for 
the  performance  of  the  dnties  of  the  cai-riiM'  in  a  parti<'nlar 
manner  will  have  tlie  effect  to  rcliev*'  him  of  a  part  of  his 
responsihilities.  Thus,  if  »;(M)ds  are  shipped  under  a  con- 
tract that  they  shall  he  carried  on  deck,  the  shipper,  havinir 
ext-rcised  his  judirnicnt  as  to  the  place  of  slowajre,  takes 
upon  himst>|f  all  the  ii>k  arisiuL'  therefrom;"^  and  if  one; 
pi'cfers  to  send  a  wajjfon  on  a  platform-car  to  takinir  it  to 
pieces  and  pu1lin<f  it  in  a  l>o\-<iir,  and  it  is  Idown  off  hythe 
wind,  the  carrier  is  not  lialde."'  These  cases  are  l)ut  illus- 
trations of  the  principle  lirst  laid  down  in  this  .section,  since  in 
eaih  of  them  the  owner  uses  his  own  discretion  as  to  the 
manner  of  iIm-  carriaLfc,  instead  of  Icavinir  the  n\atl«'r 
wiiolly  to  the  can-icr. 

' -'  Ni'w  Miiiii-w  iiU  Sii'iim  \a\ijr:ilii>M  < 'n.  v.'I'iiT-,  •_>!  N.  .1.  (I.iiw)  <'>77 
(ISMfi. 

!•■  .Mipiiiiri'iin'iv  \i'.  It.  (  11.  V.  KiliiHiml*.  II  AIm.  c,(;7  I  iscs) ;  Hawkins 
v.CiiMl  Wr-i.Tii  jj.  <  1...  17  Mirli.  :.7  ilsils,:  <;icat  Wc^iciii  |{.  ("d.  v. 
llawKiiw.  IS  Mirli.   I-J7  ,  IMI'.I  . 

I  '  j.awri'iir.'  V.  Miiiiiirti.  17  llnw.  Kiit  (Isr.h:  Cliiiltli  v.  ItiMiaiul.  2i! 
Law  {{('i..  I'.C'  ,  isiih. 

I-'  Mllliiiinic  V.  Cliirairo.  !<:«■.  K.  ('....  :t7  Wi-.  r.Ml  'ls7.*>l :  Koss  v.  'I'roy, 
i^f.  |{.  ('(t.  Ill  \t.  Iir.l  (ls77;. 


^ 


I  ( 


^ 


'<     1 


24 


TMK  (  (>NTIf.\<  !>  or  CAKIMKl!?'. 


(II.   II. 


(il.VPTKK  IF. 


tin:  r(t\vi:i!  oi-  common  caimiikks   lo  limit   iiikii;  i.im'.ii  nv 


it 


II 


tfKCTIOV. 

'J-l.  I'owcr  Fdrincily  ii"t  AdiiiiltiMJ. 

•J.'i.  Hlfjnriif  ilic  Ainiciii  Kiilr  dlaM'il. 

2('>.  J{l'^n('t<  111    llic  AlilllKl'Himrlll  of   llir  Alliiclll    I'll!"  . 

'27.  Tlir  Kiijrii-li  SiMliil.-. 

•JS.  (JfiiiTiil  Knli'  ill  AiiiiM-i'M. 

■2U.  'I'lii'  Itiilc  ill  ilic  I  iiiiitl  Mull-  ('(Mill-. 

:tll.  I'lii'  Hull'  ill  Al:ili;iiii:i. 


.Ha. 

8». 
34. 

3n. 

36. 
.47. 
38. 
30. 
40. 
41. 
42. 
43. 
44. 
45. 
40. 
47. 
48. 
40. 
60. 
51. 
52. 
63. 


AiKmii-.i-. 

(':iliiiii'iii;i. 

( 'iiloriiilo. 

('(iimiMlicut. 

|)<'la\viin'. 

Flinidii. 

(iciilifill. 

Iliiiiois. 

Iiiiliaiiii. 

Iowa. 

Kmii-i^. 

Ki'iiiiickv. 

I.uui>iaii:i. 

Maiiii'. 

Maiylaiui. 

Massicliiisctls. 

Mirtii;xaii. 

Miiiiicsiita. 

Mississippi. 

Mi>s(iiiii. 

Niliiaska. 

Ncvaiia. 

N't'w  llaiiipsliire. 


-'^'^^f^tmmwm'h 


^m 


(II.  II.] 


I'<»WKU  To  LIMIT  MMIIMTY. 


25 


Kl    1 

n\. 

."•1. 

Til. 

|{nli' 

ill   N'lW  .liMscy. 

■>.*». 

X.'W  Y.irk." 

:•(;. 

NiMlli  (  Mniliiiii 

•"•". 

Ohio. 

UK 

( )ii'y;(iii. 

r,u. 

I'i'lill^\  iv:ilii:i. 

IKI, 
<il. 

KlKMir  I.ImimI. 
SdiiiIi  (  iii'iiliiiM 

ti-2. 

'1  rlilU'xri'. 

(III. 

•r.\;i^. 

\'<'nn>>iil , 

ti.'i. 

S'il'iriiii;!. 

m. 

Wf.i   \iii:in;;i. 

117. 

\\i-i<.i|.iii. 

<i  lM.  I'iiii;  r  l-'ni-niiih/  iml  AihiilKfil . — 111  t lit'  IVx'tor  llinl 
Miidtiii,  it  is  s.-iid  :  "If  lie  (tin-  ciu'ricr)  would  yw  nnii' 
rt'l'ii^t'  In  carry  it  iiiil<>s  |)i(inii>f  wvw  imihIc  iiiiti)  liiiii  tliat 
III'  slijill  not  I»c  tli.iiiifil  f(»r  IK)  inisdciiu'imnr  tli:il  should  hi; 
ill  liiiii,  till'  |Hdini>c  were  void:  for  it  wire  jiiiaiiist  rciifson 
and  iTood  iiiiiiiiifis  :  aii<l  -o  it  is  in  all  ol  Iht  <  n-cs  like."  '  And 
so  ill  No\s  M.isiiu-  ii  is  ^,iid  :  "If  a  larritT  wnuld  I'ld'usc  to 
r;iny  iiiilt'-^  a  |iiniiii*('  ufic  iiiadc  to  liiiii  that  lie  shall  not 
lie  chaiiji'd  with  any  suili  niiscaniaoc,  that  promise  is  xoid."- 
Iii  lliili    \.   I'mpr!! /nrs,'    Lord   Kknvov  said  :    "'riicrt'    is  a 

•  litTcrfiicf  ujifii'  .1  man  is  clLir^ifaliic  hy  l,i\v  generally,  and 
u  li('i-c  on  ill-  ou  II  r.  .Ill  ract .  W'iitic  a  man  is  lioiind  lo  any  duty 
Mild  chjirir'alilc  to  a  (crlain  ixtcnt  liy  tin'  o|>»'ralion  of"  law, 
in  su<ii  lasc  Ik-  caiiiiot  ^\  any  act  of  his  own  dischar^t'  him- 
self.""   itultih::  the    cist     of  eonimon    carrii'fs  who,  he  says, 

•  all  not  dischari:*'  theinsehcs  "Ky  any  act  (d"  their  ouii,  as 
Ity  iiiviiiL''  notice  for  e\am|tle  to  th.it  effect."' 

§  2.'».  liiii'ii  nf  llif  Aniliiil  UkIi  lidiixi'd . — Lord  Kkn- 
vov II  haidl\  i'c  considered  as  meaninu,'  that  the  ein- 
|ilo\er  of  the  carrier  could  not  waive  somelhinu'  of  the 
strict ii<->  oi  his  riiihl^  i)y  :i  special  a<rrcemeiit  with  the 
« arriei .  or   that  such   an  agreement    would  not    inure  (o  the 


'  I  Hal.  i  111.  :;s. 

•-'  .M:i\.  '.'2. 

^  1  K>j.. ;((;   i7'.i;;). 


96 


TIIK  CONTIIACTS  OF  <\mJIKItS. 


[cil.   II. 


U 


iM'iu'lit  of  tlio  liiltrr  tlioujrli  -u<li  .1  coiistniclion  Imn  Imumi 
fn'i|U('iitly  placed  011  liis  laiijruMiif.'  llf  niuif  |irMl»al)ly 
nu'aiit  to  sav  thai  tlic  cairifi'  coiild  not  l»v  anv  <;,•  jtarf'', 
"act  of  his  own"  "as  l>y  jriviiij.'  iiolirc,"  uiiasscntcd  to  hy 
the  oilier  party,  "dis(liar«re  liiinself."  I^leven  years  later 
Lord  Ki.i.KMioKoitiii  spoke  of  the  power  of  carriers  to 
rotrict  their  ^reiieral  lial>ilily  liy  express  c(»iitra<'t  as  Itein;: 
uiKh.iihted.'  The  earlie-l  aiitliorilv  which  is  cited  in  siip- 
jjort  of  the  relaxation  of  the  ancient  rnle  is  the  note  of  Sir 
KdwardCoke  to  Sniif/noti-'s  ( 'nsf, -.w]  anihority  often  tjiiott'd 
on  this  suliject  hnl  which  is  xnnewhat  aniliiirnons  :  "Xnfti, 
real."  r,  it  i>  L'ood  policy  f(<i'  him  who  takes  ^.ntods  to  keep, 
to  take  them  in  special  mann«'i',  si-i/.  to  keep  tlu'in  as  he 
keeps  his  own  ptods,  «n'  to  keep  them  tin'  l»e>l  he  can  at  the 
peril  of  the  party:  or  if  they  happen  to  lie  stcden  or  pnr- 
loiiH'd,  that  he  shall  n(»t  answer  for  t  hem  :  for  he  who  ae- 
cepteth  them  oiiirht  to  take  them  in  «uch  or  the  like  manner, 
or  otherwise  he  may  he  chai'trcd  l»y  his  ircneral  acceptance. 
So  if  i:ood>  are  delivered  to  one  to  he  d<'li\ered  over,  it  is 
Hf(»od  policy  to  provide  for  liim>clf  in  >nch  >peci;il  m.-nnuT, 
for  douht  of  Iteinir  chai'ired  I'y  his  L''<'neral  accepiance,  which 
implies  that  he  t:ike>  upon  lo  do  it."''  lint  this  c;i>e  was 
one  ajrainst  an  oi'dinary  liaiiee  without  reward.  an<l  ( "oke, 
{i))parently,  was  not  >peakinii'  of  common  carriers.  Neither 
was  the  doctrine  that  ;i  carrier  mav  liniil  hi-  lialiility  l»y  .a 
special  acceptance  ddinitely  acknowledired  Ity  .Sir  .M\rriii:w 
IIai.k  in  Mnrsf  r.  .S7//r,'  a>  sonic  writers,  jJroun.  IJed- 
tield,  and  ."^tory  amonir  others,  iiave  said,  lint  l)\  the 
early  part  of  the  pres(>iit  century'  it  w;i>  settled  in  l-'jiLdand 
tiiat  common  carriers   miu'ht  limit  their   lialiilities  l»y  special 

*  As  in  IlnlJistcr  v.  Nuwlcn.  ill  Wend.  -Jill  (ls;»s). 

■''  Nii-lidlsoii  V.  Will;m.  .">  I^iisi.  ,j(i7  ( ISdtj, 

".Sdiitlicf.tcV  Cast".  1  Kcp.  M  (lt;()lj. 

'1  Vent.  1!M)  (1(JS4). 

"  III  isni  T.onl  Kljciilinniiijjli  icinaiki'd :  "'I'lii'rc  is  no  case  to  Ix- met 
witii  ill  tlif  liouks  ill  wliiili  tlic  ii;j|it  of  a  rariicr  lliiis  to  limit  liy  special 
♦•oiitractliisnwiircspoiisiliility.  lias  ever  lu'ciil)y  express ih'cisictiuli'iiiiMl." 
Nicholsuii  V.  Willaii.  '>  Kasl  507. 


(11.  II.] 


I'OWI'.lt  TO  LIMIT   I.IAHII.ri'Y. 


91 


••(iiitnict,'' imd  lliiilllifv  MiiL^lit  Icjrallv  tdiilrin't  for  rxcmp- 
tidii  fmiii  tln"  t»tiis('t|ii('nr«'?.  (tf  tlicir  (iwii  ih'^rlcrt  '"  iiiid  tins, 
oiilsidf  (if  lilt'  >l!itul('  law,  i>  the  rule  in  lliiit  r(»iiiilrv  at  this 

day." 

<i  2(i.  lliiinis  (It  Ihr  Aliiniilnniitiiil  of  till  Amii'ut  Huh'. 
— SciinM«ly,  li(»\vc\cr.  had  llif  rniiits  of  Kii<ilaiid  fstaMislicd 
llir  l»iin«i|ilf  that  carriers  iiiiLdil  limit  their  ;r<'ii<'ral  respon- 
."iliililies  iiv  iintiie  or  an  acinal  aureeiiiciit ,  licfore  thev 
licL'ail  t«»  express  i-e^rrets  that  I  he  eniMlii»tli-la\v  ride  had  not 
Iteen  adhered  to  as  preseriliin^r  the  inea-ure  of  the  lialiilitieis 
of  the  carrier  in  ev«'i-y  instance.  'I'hus  in  I  si:.','-  I.kIJi.anc, 
,1..  eomplained  that  the  exemption  (»f  caiiiers  fi-oin  their 
ireneral  lialtilit\  had  heen  carried  to  the  utmost  extent,  and 
in  isHt  M,\\Mir.i.i»,  ('..I.,  had  made  a  like  complaint  .'•' 
In  Hroiih  r.  /'irkirir/,-,^*  Mi.st  C.  .1.,  said:  "I  wish  that 
lliM^c  notices  had   never  lieen   lioldcn   siitlii'ient    to  limit   the 


'■' NicliriNoii  V.  Wllliin.  .*»  Ivi"!.  .'i>"  (IsOl):  AnniiyimMi-  v.  .FiirVi-'Dn. 
I'lviKr-  Ailil.  <':i>.  \<t  jsoo, ;  ("ii\iii;;iiiii  v.  Wilhiii.  <  inw  .  1  l."i  {isl'.i): 
Miimi  V.  IJMk.T. -J  SiMiK. -J.V.  '1sl7):ri;iv  \.  Willmi.  I  II.  I«l. -.Mts  (I7S!»): 
<'l;llkr  V.  (;i;l\.  <!  i::i«|  .•|il|  ilSll.'));  ||y<lc  v.  'I"lciil  \;iv.  ( '....  .'» 'I'.  |{  :tS<l 
ii:;*:'.    :  l/cli   '.  MniMii;iiii.  I  l''.;i>l.  :171  'Isii.!    :   It.uiunT  v.CriMi    Wr-ii-ni 

If.    Co..     1     |;;iilu;i\     C.l-.    1        l>;l>     :     l:il>V    v.    Ilonir..-.     IJilli:.     -.'irilSJS): 

Il.irrU  V.  |';i.k\Mi.iil.  :;   'I'lunl.   -Jiil    ( l*«lii   :    Smilli  v.  liornr.  >  M.    HI 

(isls   :  I -nil  V.  Hull.  I   Slink,  isc,  (|s|(;,;  |i(.,.K  v.  Kviin  .  Hi  K;i-l.-MI 

I  l»|j   :  |...\\r  \.  UuMili.  i:'.  I'll. ■<•.:!•_»!»  (|s-.>|) ;  Wvlil  v.  i'irkfonl.  sM.X  \V. 
)  i;!  ijsll    :  <':iirv.  l,iiMc;i»liirc  Xc.  K.  r.i..  7  H\c|i.  7i>7  (Is,".:!). 

'Mlivilli;    V.  'rnild.     1     Slink.     7"-'  I  Isj.'ii  :    l,ri-<i.M    v.  Ilnll.     1     Sl.llk.   isc, 

M^lti>. 

"York.  Ni\\t:i-ili'  \r.  U.  Co.  V.  Crisp,  lie.  11.  .Vi7  (is.Mi:  Slim  v. 
(i\rii\  NmilHTii  I!.  Co.  1 1  ('.  n.<il7  ris.M) :  Clii|i|icii(lulc  V.  l.imca-hlrc  «V:c. 
|{.  Co.  7  Wailway  *':i<.  s_M  (|s,"il):  (Jrral  Noitlicni  K.  Co.  v.  Morvillf.  7 
Hallway  Ca-.  s;!(i  Is.'rJ  :  .\n<liii  v.  Man(lnwt»T  \c.  1{.  Co..  la  C.  U.  I.">l 
(is.Mh:  K.r..]i\i}.  H.  <liMi  (  is.'ii  1 ;  ( ';iiT  V.  I,aiii'a>'hirf  iV:c.  H.Ci)..7  K\cli. 
7(17.  7  Kaihvay  C:i-.  IJC  (IS.'.-j);  Sliaw  v.  York  iV:  Noitli  Midlaiiil  K.  Co.. 
!:!(,».  II.  ;!I7:  (!  Itailway  Cas.  S7  (Isi'.t);  Macaiilfy  v.  riirncs<  H.  Co..  "il 
W .  \i.  110.  27  I.,  v..  N.  S.  IS,".  (IS7-J);  Taiilxnan  v.  I'acillc  Steam  Nav. 
Co..  jc.  1..'!'..  N.  S.  7111  (IS7J):  <;icat  Western  K.  Co.  v.  (jleiiister, -22 
W.  I!.  72:  211  I..  T..  \.  S.  122  (1S7:«). 

I- Meek  \.  Kvans.  |l>  Kiist.  211. 

'■'  llani.'*  V.  I'ackwood.  U  'raunl.  2f>4. 

"<  I  Hiiijj.  21S  (1S27). 


ai 


'-•!^*msmm*tmmm  *'mmmm' 


28 


TIIK  (  oNTI.'Af T  (»r  (  AltKIKItS.  [cn.    M. 


Iff 


(•■•inicrs  n'spdiisihililv."  In  X/i/to/smi  /•.  Wlllitn,^''  fjord 
Ki.i.KMioi.MH  liii  sm'kI  :  *'\\'f  (iiiiiKil  till  otlirrw  isc  tli:iii  siistiiin 
such  rii/lit  ill  IIm-  |ircsnit  iiisiMiicc.  Iniwcvcr  liiiMc  to  ;il»us(» 
iiiid  |)i'n(|iicli\('  of  iiK'oiivciiit'iiiM-  it  iii:iy  l>c  :  lc:i\  iii^' to  the 
Iciiishiluic,  if  it  >li:ill  lliiiik  tit,  to  .iiiplv  siicli  rcint'tly  licrc- 
iiftcr  MS  tlif  fvil  iiiiiy  li'iniii'c."  In  Doini  r.  Froniniit ,^'''  lie 
said:  >*l  miii  vcrv  sorry,  fortlif  cuiivciiii'iicc  of  trade,  lliat 
t'arri<'r>  liaNc  hci'ii  alluufd  tn  limit  llicir  ('oiiiiikui  law  rr- 
s|)(>iisil»ilit\' ;  and  xuiu-  lt'L;i>lati\f  iiica-iiir  upon  the  subject, 
will  soon  liccuni'.'  ncccssarv  ."  In  Murini/  r.  '/'/^A/,''  he 
said:  "I  am  sorry  tin-  law  is  so;  it  leads  to  vcty  i^reat  iiei;- 
liireiice.""  In  /I'l.r  r.  \\'///iiii .'"  iie  >aid  :  "All  tlie  dillieidties 
arise  l»y  a  depart i  re  from  tlie  old  law  wliii-li  was  acted  upon 
("or  aiic- ;  and  there  is  no  doiil»t  Iml  it  will  i"e(piire  niaii\' 
st riiiiLiies  to  l;'('I  clear  id"  the  wi>dom  of"  dni'  ancestors." 
in  ISrniiL-r  r.  I'li-I:irii-I,\^'  I'iKst,  ( '.  ,1..  -aid;  ••'I'hoii^h  c<»acli 
proprietors  <d"  the  pre-eiil  da\  are  a  rc-pcc|ahh'  ami  opnieiit 
class,  many  of  the  peisons  emplo\i'd  li\  them  roemiile 
lho>e  whom  the  coininon  l:iu  meant  to  i^iiard  :iiiaiiist ."" 
\\\  Siiii'li  r.  //,,riii\'-'  1'\i:m;i;,  ,1..  said:  ••The  (h»ctrine(d" 
carriers  e.\emptiii'^'  t  heni--el\  c^  from  iiahiiiix  li\  notice  has 
heeii  carric  I  nnicli  too  far.""  and  I'.i  i;i:i)i  (.iis.  ,1.,  added  :  ••  I 
lament  thai  the  (locii-in.'  of  notice  wasc\ei  inl;-odiiced  into 
Westminster  Hall.'" 

§  27.  T/ir  HiriUsh  Shiliilm. — 'I'hc  Mniili-ii  coiii'is  haviliu: 
thus  declari'tl  thelilsel'H'-'  povverless  to  cli;ili'je  a  rule  (d'  law 
whose  existence  I  heir  predece^  M>r.-  had  created,  liiit  which 
lh<y  lamented,  I'ailiaini'iit  at  leniith  came  to  their  re-ciie. 
\\\  the  (  arriers"  Act,''  the  provision--  di"   which  are  iiiscn    in 


'■'.-(  I';,isi .  :)(I7  (Isiili.  In  I  c,-...ii  V.  Iloli.  I  si.nk.  1st;  Isk;,.  },,■  .Mid 
tliiil  llic  liiiiitiilioiis  iiiMili'  ill  ilii<  iiiMiiiK'i'  -.•(■mill  \n  Ii:i\r  cMJiidtMl  all  iv- 
sjKiii'iiliilily  wliatcvcr. 

"'•  I  (':ilii|i.  ID  I  ISII). 

'■  I  Sl;ilk.  :.'.  I  <'aiii|i.  IIU  (  |s|:, ,. 

'"Hull.  c.i:.  I  isi7). 

''■'  ,V'////-./. 

'-■"  Hull.  c.i:!.  s  'I'miiiiI.  lit   '  |s|S). 

-I  II  (Ji'o.    1.   I    Will.   (  I'll    (IS. 


"^■^fWiSi^.a'Hiaata 


<1I.    II.]  I'OWKK    lO  MMir   I.IAHII.irV. 


2!) 


,'l    snl»s(Mjii('lll    cliiiptcf,  llic    t'IT<'<l  of   iKilif.V'    \v;is    iimcll  coii- 
Irolli'd.      Scvcnil  veils   LiltT  tin-    K*iiilu:i\  mikI   ('!m;il   TiMtlic 
Ad     was    passed  —  a    slaliilt-   wliicli    a(     tliis     day     Movcnis 
till'    coiidiii'l     of    llic    liicatt'T   pari     (d'     tlic   t  laiispurtarKtiis 
(d"    (ircat     llriliiii.'-'       liy     tlic    scvciilli    section    of    tlii>    art 
a     i'ail\va\'  or   tMiial    eoinpaiiy    is    lialtle    (or    llie    |os>   of    or 
f'oi'    aiiv     iiijiirx     done   to    an\     lioi'ses,,    ealtir    or  other   ani- 
mals,  oi'  to  anv   art ieles,  ptods   oi"llnni:s   in    the   I'eeeivin^:. 
i'or\var<lini:' or  delivei'in<:'   llierecd".  oeea>ioned    liy  the    ne^leet 
or  dcd'aidt  »d"  sneh  eonipany  or  it-  ser\allt^,  not  \s  it  h>taii(lini:' 
anv  noliee,  eondilion  and  (h'<  laration  L'ixeii  hy  ^ueli  eonipany 
eoiitrarv    thereto,    or    in    any    wi-e    limit  iiii';    -^iieh    liability  : 
(\('r\   siieli  notice,  eondilion  or  declaration  heiiii:' I  liereli\  de- 
clared null  and  \(»id.      'I'liere  is  a    pid\i>o   that    notliinii coii- 
laiiiecl   ill    the  act    shall    l»e  coiislnied    to  prevent  these  com- 
panies   from    iiiakiiiL!'   such    conditions    with    respect    to    the 
receivini:',  I'orw  ardiiii:' and  delixeriiiL;'  of  any  (d'  the  said  ani- 
mals, article-,  -jdods   or  lhiiii:s   as   sliall    lie  adjiidii'ed  Ky  the 
court    or   jiid'je    liel'orc    wIkmii    any  (Hl«'slioii    relatiiii;'   thereto 
shall  he  tried,  to  I just  and  reasonalde."   I'ly  a  second  pro- 
viso, no  irreater  (laiiia;.:e-.  >hall  lie  recoxered    lor  the    loss  of, 
or  for  am   injury  done,  to  any  of  such  animals,  lieyond    the 
sinus  after  meiitioiied  :   that    is   to  say,  for  any   horse,  ITiO; 
foranvMcal    cattle,    per  head,    t' I  .">  ;    for  any   sheep  or   piiis, 
per  head,  L'- :    iiiile--   the   person   x'lidiiii^'  or  delivcrinu'  the 
same  to  such  company,  shall,  at    the   time  of  such   delivery, 
have  ileclared  I  hem  to  he  re'-|iecti\  fly  (d"  a  lii<:lier  vahh-  than 
as   aliov*'   meiitioiieil  ;    in    vvlii(  h   ea>e    it      hall    he   lawful    for 
such  compam   to  demand   and    receive  hy  way  <d"  compensa- 
tion   for  the   increased    risU   and   care   llierel»\    occasioned,   a 
I'easoiialde   pei<'   niaii'e    upon    the   excess  of   the  \.ilne   >o  de- 
clared aliov  e  t  he  re-peiti\  c  ^iim--  so  linii'''d  as  aforesaid,  and 
which    shall     li>     paid    in    addition    to    the    ordiiiirv     rate    (d' 
cliariz'e  :   and    -inh    peiceiila'.'c   or   jiicreasid    rate  of     chaiic 
shall  lie   notitied  in  iIh-   manner  presccilied   in  11  (ieo.  -I  and 


I 


-'•'17  Mini   is  Vic.  rji.  Ill    (1S,-,|). 


w 


:¥) 


THE  rONTRACTS  OI"  CAKKIKI.'S. 


[cm.  II. 


;! 


ir 


I  Will,  i,  <■.  <>><,  and  shall  lie  hiiidiiiir  ii|)oii  siidi  coiiii)!'.!,^* 
ill  till'  inaiiiHT  tii-'fcin  niciiiioiicd.  ll\  a  ttiird  pi'o".  iso,  |)i'()(.f 
of  tilt'  value  oi"  suili  aiiinials,  articlt-s.  izoods  and  lliiii<rs, 
and  the  aiiioui:'  ol'  ilx-  iiijinv  done  therein,  -hall  in  all  eases 
lie  upon  the  perxiii  claiiiiiiiL;'  c'lnijieiisatioii  I'or  sueli  loss  oi- 
injur\  .  r>\  a  roiir'ii  proviso,  no  >|ierial  eoiilraet  hetue'ai 
sui'ii  eoiiipain'  and  aii\  oilier  parties  respiviino-  the  recei\- 
iiitr.  foruardiii;^-  or  delivcriiiir  of  aiiv  animals,  articles,  <j;dods 
(U"  tliiiii;s  as  aforesaid,  shall  i)e  liiiidiiiL;'  upon  or  afl'eet  iin\ 
sueli  party  unles>  the  >aiiie  he  signed  hv  him,  or  liy  the  p  t- 
soii  deliveriiiiT  sueh  animals,  articles,  ijoods  orthinirs  respec- 
tively for  carriaiT*'.  .'ind  lastly,  it  is  pro<ided  that  noth,  iii" 
therein  contained  shall  alter  or  affect  the  rii:ht>,  pri\  ilexes 
or  liah'lities  (if  any  siicli  company  unih'r  11  (ico.  4.  aiii  I 
Will.  4,  e.  (IS,  ••The  Carrier's  .\ct."  with  rc'-pecl  to  arti- 
cles of  the  description  meiilioiied  in  lli;il  ;ic) 

All  the  parts  of  sect.  7.  of  17  i^c  \><  \"u  ,  c.  .'Il,  niusi  lie 
road  t(>,ir<'ther,  and  therefore  the  coiulitions  there  >pol<ei!  of 
:is  cjipahle  of  heini:'  inipf)sed  hy  railway  companies,  in  limi- 
tation of  their  lialtility  as  common  c.-irriei-s,  mii>t  not  onl\- 
lie  in  the  opinion  of  a  court  or  a  jmliic,  just  and  reasonalde, 
luit  must  also  he  emhodied  in  a  special  contract  in  writiii'jf, 
si/iueil  hy  the  ow  ner  or  sendei- of  the  Lioods.-'  The  stalule 
extends  to  eases  where  a  special  eoiil  raet  ha>  heeii  siiiMed, 
in  accordance  with  the  pi'o\i.>,i  in  the  .-eetion  that  no  sp( cial 
eoiitraet  lietweeii  company  and  cii--toiner,  ropeetini:-  the 
receivin-r  of  animals,  shall  he  iMiidini:-,  unless  it  he  si-ned 
hy  the  customer  or  person  deliverintr  the  animals.-'  As  s.aid 
hy  .Ikk\is,  V.  ,].■'  "The  intention  of  i  he  lei^islature  in  ]iass- 
in^Mlie  act  in  (|Ucstion  was  to  place  the  whole  railwa\  \  s- 
tein  under  the  control  of  the  cnnri."  The  numerous 
decisions  which  have    heeii  made    under  this    statute,  except 


«  Ppi"1<  v.  Snvth  Sf;iff(inl<liiiv  TJ.  C,..  !'•  II.  I..  (  ;w.  i;;):  -.i  .fur. 
N.  S  -.1!;  ;{2r..  .I..<^  15.211:  H  W.  |;.  iu;:  s  ;,.  t..  N.  s.  7.;s  ,isr,:i,." 

"  McMaiiu-^  V.  I.anc;i-liiiv  .<o-.  If.  Cm..  ;  ||.  ,v  N.  .•{•J7;  .■i.Fiir.  \.  .S.  i;.-,l  ; 
28  L. .)..  Kxrii.  :i.-..i:  ;!:|  I,,  i.  2.V.1:  Kx.h.  <  •\,au\.  ,  |s.-.!i.. 

*>  I.oiicl.iii  A  NoitlnvcsfiMii  Ji.  (  (>.  V.  DiinliiMii.  is  ('.  B.  S2ti  (is.")(i). 


X 


CM.    II.] 


I'OWKI!    TO  I.I  Mir  I.IAItlMTV. 


m 


as  to  wli.'il  Mi'c  "jiisl  iiiid  rt'Msoiiiiltlc"  coiHlitions  which  hit 
citt'd  ill  :i  siilisiMHiciil  (iKipIrr,  ,irc  not  <ji\fii  licit':  t!icy  iirc 
|K'('iili:ir  to  tliis  st;itiitc  |o  \\hi<li\vc  Imxc  iiothiiiLi' siinihir 
ill  tlic  Icjrishitioii  of  Miiy  of  llic  Sliitcs.  As  the  l-lniilish  (';ir- 
rici'">  iicl  of  is.iO.  iiikI  the  K'ailwMV  :iii'l  (  miki!  'I'nilHc  Act  of 
lX."»t,  liMvc  not  lie«'n  M(lo|ile»l  in  (';iii!iil;i.  the  rcspoiisjliilit y 
of  :i  coniiiKdi  c.'iiricr  there  !c>ts  wholly  upon  the  principles 
of  the  eoiniiion  hiw  ,  :m(l  iii.iy  lie  >o  liinited  liy  special  con- 
tract that  he  >liall  imi  he  lialile,  even  in  ca.-e  of  jjfioss  nejj^ii- 
jLTcne*',  iniscoiidiict .  or  I'rand  on  the  part  of  his  servanls.-'" 
§  2S.  fi'f'ii'iii/  li'iilr  III  Aiinricd . — A  c(»ninion  carrier  has 
two  distinct  liahilitic-,  incliidinir  tir.-t  all  losx.-  occasioned 
!iv  accident  or  mistake  and  without  his  f;iull ,  where  he  is 
liahle  li\  the  custom  of  the  realm,  or  the  common  law,  as 
an  insurer,  and,  second,  for  all  ht>ses  occasioned  by  his 
default  or  lu'irliireiice,  where  he  is  lialile  as  an  ordinary 
hailce.  In  tlii--  country  it  is  ii-eneially  held  that  he  may 
limit  his  ropoiisiliility  as  an  insurer,  hy  special  contract,-' 
hut  that  he  cannot  li\  any  contia<t  exempt  himself  fi'oni 
responsiltilitv  for  the  consct|ueiices  of  his  own  ne;;Tiireiice, 
or  for  tiie  iicLdiLicnec  (d'  lii>  >er\aiit>  or  agents;  contracts  of 
the  latter  kind  lieiiii!'  considered  as  lieinii-  void  liecause  they 
are  airaiii>t  pul»lic  polic\  .  aii<l  licause  they  are  supposed  to 
he  olitained  under  circumstances  u  Inch  ^iive  to  the  carrier 
an  undue  advanlaiic  in  olitaiiiiiiir  terms  which  the  law  can- 
not enforce  without  iriviiiL;  il>  sanction  to  injustice  and  op- 
pression. A  separate  view  of  the  decisions  in  each  State 
follow.-  this  section,  from  which  it  will  he  seen  that  this  may 
properlv  he  called  the  American  rule.  tliou<:li  not  appliealile 
to  Fowa  or  Texas  where  the  statutes  declai'e  a  stricter  rule, 
nor  to  West   \'ir:finia.  where   a  looser  doctrine    prevails,  nor 

-■"DiKl-uii  V.  (ii'iniil 'rniiiU  K'.  (  O..  7  < 'iiiim(1:i.  !,..!.  (X.  S.)  -JC;!  'ISTD). 
One  licliiiy:  nil  :i  free  |i;i»s.  hy  llic  I('nii<  of  wliiili  llii'  iicr^mi  iicrciitiii;;-  il 
iis^iinii'd  III!' risk-:  of  arcidnits  Mini  (liiniMirc  ciiiinoi  iiiMiiiliiiii  ;iii  Mi'linii 
fur  an  iiijnry  sii.»iaiii('(|  wliilc  lidiii;:  un  ilir  pass.  Siiilicrlaml  v.  <;ri':il 
Wc^tciii  R.  i  '<>..  7  f.  ('. « '.  I'.  Iii'.i  ( ls,-is  1.     .MfxaiiiliT  \ .  'reruiiio  !{.  ( 'n.. 

:{r.  I.e.  q  n.  i.v.t  ns7.">i. 

•-'^  15ari.'r  v.  Wlifclcr.  IK  N.  II.  ii  (iMliD. 


32 


TIIK  CONTKACTK  OK  C.MMMKIiS. 


[ciI.    II. 


to  Xcw  ^'ork,  iIk'   Iciidinir  comincrciMl    SImIc  of  the    riiioii, 

wliosc    ciMirls    hcu'iiiiiiiii:'    ill    Itciiiii    iiiK'oiupromisiiiir-"'   Iimvc 
elided  ill  lieinu:  wiiiitoii.-'' 

J)  2!t.  77ii'  lidh-  ill  Ihr  Cnlnl  Sl(itr.<  Cniirts- — In  (lie 
F('ler;il  <'(iiifts  it  is  held  that  iid  conirai't  liy  a  <-(iiiiiii(iii  ear- 
rier  for  an  e.\em|ilii)ii  from  re>|ton>il>iiit  v  can  lie  siistiiiiied 
a~  lieiii'j-  lawful  iinle'-s  it  is  just  and  reasonalde  in  the  e\e 
<d'  tlie  law,  and  tliat  a  coiitraet  liy  wliieli  a  earrier  would 
slipiilate  for  eNein|ilioii  from  ri'-|)oiisiliilii  •.  for  the  iiei:li- 
i;-eiice  (d"  himself  or  hi-  servants,  is  not  jii^t  and  ica-onalde 
in  the  e\e  of  the  law.  '  Cai'efiiliiess  and  lidelity  are  e->eii- 
tial  diitii'-  on  the  part  of  cominon  carrier-  of  Li'oods  jind 
etirriers  of  |ia--eni^-(.|-s,  >;!\  ||||.  Sii|,icine  ( 'oiiit  <d'  the 
I'liiled  State-,  and  a  failure  to  |i(rrorni  them  i-  iieL:li;:cnee 
for  which  the  carrier  is  liaitle.  llie  <li.-t  iiic,  ion  lieiweeii  ordi- 
nary and  Liross  iieiiliiicnce  lieini;'  iimiecessai-x  :  jiiililie  poliex' 
demiiiidiiii:' that  the  iiLiht  of  the  owner  to  ali-oliite  seeijl'itv 
ii;):;iiiis|  the  neirliu'eiU'c  <d'  I  he  caii'ier  and  id'  all  |icr,-oii-  eii- 
l.ML;<'<i  in  |ierforminir  lii-^  duly,  -hall  not  he  taken  awav  li\ 
any  reservation  in  his  receipt .  or  l>y  any  arranL''emi'nt  l)et  w-eii 

the  ('inployer  .•ind  the  employee.  '       W'itlltlli-    exception    the 


•>(;.. nil!  V.  Ilill.  2  Hill.  r,i:\  '\s\-i  . 

-"' l'"ikin<  V.  N'rw  Ycirk  Cciii.  |{.  (',,..  ji  \,  y..  I'.ic,  ,  |s(;-j) ;  \V,|N  v. 
Niu  Y-irk  (  c  ii:.  i:.  f....  jj  \.  ^^  \s\  ,  |s(ij,  ;  |{i,„ll  v.  \cw  Yoik  i  ,rit. 
J{.  <'u. .•_'.")  N.  V.  IIJ  Isiii;  :  Nichnl.i-  V.  New  Vni'k  (  Cnl.  |{.  Cn..  I  lluii. 
\\11     |s7"i   .  :illlriii(i|    li\    llii- (  iiiiil  (.f    \|i|pi',i|-  (  |s7!)). 

'   l{;iilrn;i.|  (',,.   V.    I.iirkw I.    17    \V;,||.  :i,-,7   .|s7:(,:    |;,h||„;„|   c,,.   v. 

l*iiill.2J  Wall.  IJ;t  (|s7|,;   Kmiii.-I   v.  |';s|.ic<- C...  |  \V I-.  .-.7:!     |s7,!): 

|';x|iri'^s  Co.  v.  I\iiiiiii/r.  -  W.ijj.  .!|j  (|s(||ii:  |  lniincwfll  \.  T:,!..!.  •_' 
Simiirni'.  1  i|s:,|i:  I'li,.  VavWW.  \  Ijcjnly.  I7  ,|si;h:  Tiir  Cjiy  ..f  \ui- 
wi.ji.   I    n.li.   271     i|s7n,;    |{.ii||(i:i((    (  •(,.  V.   M.MiutM.nnillii'   Cm.!    H;    \V;i||. 

:fl«   (IS7-J):  'I'hf   Mmv   (,) ai.  I    New  I..    U\:^      \<,\-.   'n,,.    \,.u    Wmld   v. 

kiii.ir.  Hi  llou.  |(;!i  i|s.-,;|,:  x,...,  .i,.|-.(-,  Sicmn  .\;i\.  I'o.  v.  Mrrrjiaiil-" 
Hank,  (i  Mow.  ;»!(  (jsls,;  Vmk  fn.  v.  ( Vniral  ifaJIr.p.MJ.  :l  \Val|.  ;  "T 
(iNIi:.  :  The  Ifr.rki'l,  I  \\\~<.  :(.-,|  ijsiKl);  ||„.  |,,,^i,|  .,||,|  (■.,,-,, ji,)),  .r, 
Hlat.lif.  J(!(!  rlsir,):  ■rill-  ji.-lluiia.  I  jt.'n,  .Mi;!  <  |s7l  i:  .\cl-uii  v.  .XaiNH'id 
Steamship  Co..  7  IJcii.  :||ii  ,  |,s7(i:  I'l,,.  Invimilpli'.  I  |,u«i-ll.  j-j.-,  ^\^^\- . 
'I'lic  Di'Ilii.  I  Hen.  :it."i  {\xH)).  anil  ciisi-s /»/.v.«(-),i. 

"  Kaili<i,i(|  Co.  V.  I,nck\\oo(l.  17  U'all.  :i:i7    1^7:1-:  IJaiik  of  Ki'iitinky 
V.  Ailaiiis  Ksiiics.:  Co..  !i:;  r.  .S.  171.  I   (rill.  I,.  .1..  :;.-,  (|.s7(l,:   ivvci-lii.', 


;.<■!  S 


(11.     II.] 


roWKK  TO  LIMIT  I.IAHII.ri'Y. 


;{;{ 


c.'irricr  in:iy  limit  his  liability  liv  contiart .  Hut  Iw  can  not 
(|(»  so  by  notice  ;  and  the  acccptancf  hy  a  coiisi^rnor  without 
ohjcction  of  a  n'ccipt  contaiiiinir  iKtticc  of  exemptions 
printed  on  its  hack,  does  not  amount  to  such  a  contract  as 
under  the  ruh*  hiTe  estaltlishe<l  is  re(|uired.'- 

§  .'i(>.  Aliihdniii. —  In  Ahd)ama  the  ride  is  tiiat  common 
carriers  may  not  contract  for  immunity  from  the  c(»nse- 
qiienees  of  tlieir  own  iie^lijreiice  ;  yet  they  may  contract  for 
exemption  from  tlie  extreme  ineasiii'e  of  lialiility  which  the 
common   hiw  imposes  where  no  fraud  or  ne<jfliirence  is  impu- 


.V.  <•.  1  ('.•III.    I-.  .1.  i:{()  (1.S7I);  Kuilway  ('<>.  v.  .S|cv<mis.  ;c.  \. 
(rut.  I..  .1.  -Jdr  0'^""' 


."S.  •;,■).->.  i; 


(rut.  I..  .1.  -HM  Osi:). 

'-•  l{!iiln>ii(t  Co.  V.  Mimiifni'iiiiiii^c  Cn..  ir,  Wall.  :tlS  (1S72) ;  .Vyrrs  v. 
W.'Mcni  Ci)..  It  lUatrli.  11  (I.STll):  I'hr  I'iicillc  1  Dcady.  17  (ISdlj;  Tlii' 
.M:iy  (i II.  1  Ncwl).  n;."i  (is.'il). 

M'i tluT  cast's  ill   tin-  Fi'dcral  Cuni'ts  aii' :  Tin' Aiitninciia  (',.  .">  Hm. 

.'HU  ,  |S7'_');  Till-  AmiTK'a.  s  Men.  I'.U  (|s7i'.);  .\iilli(.ny  v.  .Ktiia  Iii>.  Co.. 
1  Al.!..  (f.S.)  :ti;»(lsu!ij:  IJaxtciv.  L.-iaiid.  Alil).  Adm.  :MS  (ISjS) ;  IIiuI.t 
V.  Till-  .\iro\v.  t!  .Mel.caii,  170  (IH.m);  Hcaisc  v.  lto|u's.  1  Si>ia;jiH'.  ICtl 
(ls.v>;:  Ha/ill  v.  Sii';(iiisiii|iCo..;!  \V:ill..rr..-J21i  ( ls.-)7) ;  Hiilklt\  v.  Naiiiii- 
kca;:'  .'Sii'aiii  Coiion  Co..  1  Cliff.  M-1  (  is.vi).  ».  c.-Jl  Ilow.  ;tM;  JsilO;; 
JJroadwil!  v.  jliiilcr.  1  N'rwI..  171  (IS.M);  .s. <•..(;  .Mci.i'an. -JIMJ  ( 1S.")4) ; 
HradMiT.'l  v.  Ilnaii. -J  IMalclif.  IMl  ISI'l);  Clark  v.  Haniw.-ll.  \1  Ilow. 
•J7J  t  is:)!) :  Cliiilil)  V.  Kciiaiid.  •JU  Law  Kc|i.  VX\  (Istih:  Carey  v.  \\- 
kiiis.  i;  Hfii.  ."id-J  ;1S7;{):  'I'lir  Costa  Uira.  It  Sawy.  .YIS  (1S7.-,);  'I'iic 
Coiii|ila.  1  Sawy.  :{7.'»  (ls77);  'rin-  California.  -J  Sawy.  12  (1S71);  'I'lic 
C«»|iiliili(>.  :t  Mlalilif.  ."iJl  (l.s.'ifii;  Kixoii  V.  Coliiiiiltiis  \i'.  K.  Co..  I  IJis,. 
I:J7  JMCiN):  IUhlilc  V.  .Mor;;aii.  1  Woods.  IOC,  (l,s7:});  |>ii|ioii|  v.  Vance. 
Ill  Ilow.  IC.J  (is,-,(l,:  Kxpies^  (  o.  V.  Calilwell.  Jl  Wall.  JUj  (ls71);  The 
Kiiiiiia  .Jojiiisi,|i,  I  S|irajxiie.  .")J7  (istlO);  'I'lie  Kdwiii.  1  Si>ra;;iie.  177 
J.SVi):  The  Kthcl..-.  Men.  i:.l  (ls71);  Tlu-  Favorite.  2  Hiss.  .V)2  (ls7r); 
Tlie(!oId  Ihiiiler.  nialclif.  \  II.  :!(»(»  (1SH2):  (larrison  v.  Meiiipliis  Ins. 
Co..     I'.i    Ilow.    ;I12     'IS.VIi;    IJailway    Co.  v.  Stevens.  !H    1'.    S.    (m.").  (I 

I  '..iif       I         I     •)OT    fIVTTi.     II..>.I.i.^.    <-      IV',,^.1....>|      1!     t>l..>..l.<'     1!)    /Iw'i-vv.     Il...,> 


— ■•       \' '.        •«.'        ■■'•■..'•■..a       i.i--t      ..MM       vi'.p.r;.        ff"        iJit.!*      ■ii«..m 

Ml--.  Ill  (|(i'i!»):  l-aiiil»  V,  I'arkniaii.  I  S|iia;iiie.  :i(:t  ,ls:)7j;  Lawremev. 
.'|i|ililiii.  17  Ilow.  1(1(1  nsr.l,:  The  Live  Yankee.  1  |)ead\.  IJOdsiiS): 
l.eaiy  \.  If.ilid  Stale-.  II  Wall.  i;(t7  (lS7li:  The  Mileliis.  .">  IMaU'li.  iW.-) 
(|S(il!):  The  Moliawk.s  Wall.  ir>.l  ils(iS):  Merrill  v.  Are.\ .  ;i  Ware.  21.". 
(ls.-.!i);  the  M.dlie  M"ld.r.  2  Miss.  od.'.  (|S7i);  The  Milwai.k-e  Belle.  2 
Miss.  I!I7  (|s(i:),:   .Meii/ell  V.  Uailwav   Co..  (   |''|liin.  r,;{i  (|s7iii;   Ne|.,.,|; 


r. 


:u 


TMK  (ONTKACTH  OF  fAIUMKUS. 


[en.  II. 


tiiblc  to  tliciii.-'  TlifV  <;m  not  limit  their  lial.ilily  l>y  a 
notice  inserted  in  a  receipt  unassented  to  l)y  tiu'  shipper.'* 
That  the  •'■ooils  were  taken  "at  the  owner's  risk  "  only  af- 
fects the  lialiility  of  tiie  carrier  as  an  insurer.''-'' 

5  ;n.  Ark'iiisds. —  'I'licre  lias  been  no  direct  adjudication 
. .11  this  Mil»ject  in  Arkansa>  :  hut  it  has  been  lield  in  that 
State  that  a  stipulation  in  a  hill  of  ladinj;  ;;iven  by  a  car- 
rier, liinitinjr  his  liability  to  loss  or  daniairt  oecurriiijr  on 
his  own  line,  was  biiidiii<r  on  the  bailor.'"'* 

§  :i'2, —  ('ali/i)rni(i. — Only  one  decision  in   point   is  to  bo 


v.Wortdruff.  I  Hlaok.  mc  HSfll);  Tlio  \.-\v!iik.  1  HlaK  hf.  'im  (ISir,); 
Ntiiioms  V.  Vivnct',  11»  How.  Wl  i  IS.VI) ;  'riic  NiapHii  v.  Curilcs.  21  llt-w. 
7  (1S.W);  TIk!  Occin  Wiivc.  W  Hiss.  \\\1  (ls7-2);  Tht'  OiilliumiK-,  1  Sawy. 
171!  (•1S70):  Tlic  OllxTs.  :i  Hen.  lis  (IH'.!!);  Tlif  r<Mfin\  s  ncii.  :ii)l 
(|S7.->);  The  PortsiiioiUli.  !l  Wall.  (1S2  ^ls(!il):  I'hilaiiclplila  Ac  1{.  ('■.  v. 
Ucrliy.  II  lldw.  KIS  (IH.Vi):  Jtailriiad  Cn.  v.  .\iulnis(o>r;ri„  Mill-.  22  W^.ll. 
.MM  (ls7h;  The  Itccsidc.  2  Simi.  r)(;7  (ls:i7);  'I'lic  Hcl.fn'a,  1  Ware.  IsS 
(l,s:»l);  K.'iy  v.  Tlii-  Mihvaiikcr  Hcllr.  is  Am.  I,.  T.  IJcp.  ('••*>  (istl'.tj;  'llir 
SanliT.  2  Bfii.  .')l!l  (IsdS) ;  St.  .Inliii  v.  Kxiin's>  Co..  1  Woods.  ('.12  1 1S71  ;  ; 
.Six  llniidird  and  'riility  Ca-ks.  11  Blatclif.  .M7  (ls7s);  Siii-yt-r  v. 'Mm 
Mary  llillf  HotiiTts.  2  Sawy.  1  (l.s71);  'I'lii' Star  of  Hope,  17  Wall.  f..".l 
ils7;{);  Soiiilicrii  Kxini'ss  Co.  v.  Difksoii.  !t(  I'.  S.  .Mil  (ls7t'(';:  'rnnifr  v. 
'I'lic  Hlack  Warrior.  1  .Mc.Ml.  isl  (ls.-,t;);  'I'raiisportatioii  Co.  v.  l>o\Mi(r. 
11  Wall.  121t  (ls7(i,;  'rwclvc  Ilmidifd.  ^c.  rip(<.  .".  H<ii.  1112  i  ls7l  i  ; 
Van  Si'liaack  v.  .Norllicrii  Tran-portaliou  Cci,,  ;!  Hi>-^.  ;!'.l|  ils72);  'I  lio 
Vivid.  1  lliMi.  :n!1  (l.s7(M  ;  Van  Syckcl  v.  Tlii'  Kwin.i:,  (  raMic.  inr.  i  |.v|i)) ; 
Vaii-rlian  v.  (IllO  Casks,  7  \Un.  .VHJ  (ls71) ;  'I'lu'  Wallian,  111  Op..  Ally. 
(Jen.  Mil  (isdit). 

•■"  (ircy  V.  .Mohilc  Trade  Co..  "..">  Ala.  :!s7  |S7(1, ;  sifclr  v.  'I'ow  nsiiid.  :;7 
Alii.  2-17  (IWil);  Sonlli  A  North  Alaliaina  K.  C.  v.  Ilndtin.  :<1  Ala.  Hik; 
(lS7.'>!..i.  r.,  .''>il  Ala.  ;ti'.s  (Is7ii):  SoutliiMii  V.\.  Co.  V.  Arm-It  ad.  .Ml  Ma. 
:(.">0  ;is7:i);  Sonili.rM  F:x.  Co.  v.  Crook,  II  ,Ma.  liis  (,ls70);  .MoMlf  ,\;.-. 
|{.  Co.  V.  Hopkins.  11   Ala.  ISO  (ISdS). 

»<  Soiillicrn  Kx.  Co.  V.  Ariustcad,  .'.II  .\la.  Il.M)  (|S7;r,i;  Soiillifrn  Kx. 
Co.  V.  Cn„ik,  II  Ala.  I'iS  il.s70);  Soiillicni  Kx.  Co.  v.  Capcrt"!!,  41  \\». 
101  (lS7(t). 

*'■  Moliili-  Ac.  I{.  Co.  V.  .lart II  Ala.  fill  (ISCS). 

Thf  ollit-r  cases  in  tlii-  State  are:  IliMer  v.  Me(  art  iiey,  :il  Ala.  ."ill 
(1S,-(,S):  .loiu'sv.  I'itelier.  It  St.  i^^  I'.  IX*)  (^is:{;t);  McCluie  V.  c<>x.:{2  Ala, 
(il7  fls.'.S);  Samji-on  v.  (iaz/ain.  C  Port.  12:1  ( ls:{7; ;  K/ell  v.  Miller.  D 
port.  :{(l7ns;ts^:  Kzell  v.  Knjrli>li,  (J  I'ort.  :ni  d-.tS);  Waylaiid  \. 
Mos.'hy.  ."•  Ala.  i:t(t  ;  ISCt; ;  (  ..x  v.  I'eter-on.  :)(l  Ala.  (!I».S  (,1.S,''(7). 

»« Taylor  v.  I.ittli-  J?"<^1<  Ac.  J{.  C>.    \\i  Ark.  "!i;i  (1>77). 


(11.  II.  J 


i'OWKK  Tf)  LIMIT  I.IAIill.lTY, 


a5 


found  ill  llic  reports  of  tliis  .Stale  In  tliiil  rase  a  it'ccipt 
irivcn  l»y  an  express  company  for  a  paekaire  of  irold  dust, 
(■ontained  lliis  eonditioii:  "It  is  further  aL^'eed  .and  is  part, 
of  the  consideration  of  this  eontf.iet  tliat  Wells,  KariTo  & 
('o,  an'  not  to  he  responsihle  except  as  forwarders,  nor  for 
any  loss  or  damage  arisini;  from  the  danjrers  of  railroad, 
ocean  or  river  navi<;ation,  lire,  itc.,  unless  specially  insured 
hy  them  and  so  specified  in  this  receipt."  This  liinitati(»n 
was  held  not  to  dischar^rc  the  company  from  lial)ility  for  a 
l(tss  caused  liy  the  Ui'irliirenci'  of  the  olHccrs  of  a  vessel 
(•mployed  l>y  the  express  company  to  transport  the  jroods 
named  in  the  receipt .  The  court  simply  construed  the  re- 
ceipt without  dccidinj;  the  <|ue<tion  whether  or  not  a  com- 
mon <:irrier  could  contract  for  exemption  for  nejrliirence.'" 


■■"  ||i">|i<T  V.  Wolls.  'J7  C.'il.  II  (IK(;»).  Siiwjcr.  .1..  wliM  ili-livind  ili« 
ii|iliiliiii  of  llif  roiirt.  xiiid  :  "Wf  tliiiik  it  ran  imt  Im>  suit!  that  (In-  contract 
in  i|ii(  >ilnn  in  i  jciir  ami  nnciiiiivncal  lcrni>-  ncccs-arily  evinces  an  inicn- 
li<iM  on  Ihc  pari  of  liolii  |la^tic^.  or  of  citlicr  |iartv.  that  ilcfcntiiUits  ••ImII 
lie  cMinci'iili'd  from  any  loss  rcsnltin;r  froui  nc;j:llJ;jcMcc  in  the  a;rcnci»'« 
<  ni|i!oyci|  l>y  llicin  in  tlic  lran''|ioi'laiion  of  ti'iM>4n'c  coin'.nilf*-"!  to  ilicrr 
care.  If  'mil  liaii  liccri  the  intcntitni  it  cirtainly  conlil  and  iiont(i|i'!>« 
•Aonid  have  liccn  cxjircsscd  in  lanjrnajii-  alioni  wliidi  tluTc  could  li.iv^ 
Ih  I'll  no  nii-appuhchsioM  liy  cillicr  pany.  N'oiliin);  is  -aid  al«»nt  m  u'li- 
/Xcncc.  'I'Ik'  lan;in;i;;c  ii</(|  is  not  sncli  a-  ncccs-arily  »-\pr»-.».-s,  tii  a* 
men  vsonid  oi-(|inarily  employ  toe\ptc.».  ilie  idea  now  claimed  for  it.  and 
if  <o  n-ed  if  wonlfl  lie  lilvcly  In  mi-i.-ad  a  parl\  lo  whom  it  is  tendered 
i-,.;i,|y  ,.>,rcnlcd  ii|»'»ii  (lie  receipt  of  Iii~  properi  \  for  iransporlatioii.  'I'liat 
plainiiff  ciMild  not  hiiW'  iinderstunii  tli<'  connact  in  the  >eii-e  claiineil 
(or  ll  liv  I  lie  defemfanl.''  ccenis  in  the  liiLriie-l  dej^rf-  prolialile.  for  it  caw 
^caicel',  lie  credited  that  a  in. in  of  iprdinary  cajiacitN  ami  intellijiciiee 
woidil  comniii  -n  valnaliie  a  package  to  .iiher>  in  1>'-  transported  a  iosiij 
(li'-lame  \\ illioii!  apposin;;  thai  somdioih  would  !>»■  i'i'>.poM>.iliie  in  liim  loi' 
al  |ea-l  ;!-oo(l  failh  and  ordinaiy  care  dniin;:  the  tran.-il.  Kill  if  the 
<'on>irnction  claimed  for  the  stipulation  in  (|ne-i  ion  i-  to  prevail.  Ih**  de- 
fciidaiit  '   were    miilier    re>ipoi|.ii|i|e  themselves    lor  ordinary  ea^re.  afu-r 

(lie  (//',|-nie  ,ef|  IJii  ir  otll'  e  al  I.os  An<re|es.  nor  lioiiml  to  lake  th<'  ine.W- 
nre^  pi"  rineil  li\  llie  slalnte  in  make  Ihe  owner-  of  the  vessel-  u-ed  l#!^" 
them  as  a  liii'Hli>^  of  traiisportalion  re-|ionsihh'.  The  lan;;nap'  «»f  th«* 
stipiiliilion  under  con^idei'aii<in.  a*  leu-l  admits  of  the  conirrwtion 
vNliich  we  have  j^ivcn  il ;  and  to  hoM  iha<  the  exception  includes  losses 
arisin;;  from  ne^lip'ticc  would,  in  our  jiid;;ment.  1k'  to  adopt  a  strained 
con-h  III  ip./i  ill  fa\orof  dcfcMilant-.  and  to  depail  from  it-  olivion -iin- 


80 


Tin:  (  <»NTKA<'TS  OK  CAIMMKKS. 


[(  M.    II. 


Hi 


§  ;i,"i.  Cii/nnnln. — A  fomiiKHi  ciirritT  iiimv  <i>iilr;ul  for 
('.M'liiitlidii   from   anidt'iilal    lo-^scs,  l»ul    not  from    iK'irli.iTt'Ml 

ones.'"* 

§  ;{4.  Ciiinii rllnit. — A  coiiiiiKdi  ciirricr  may  limit  liis 
liahility  In' «'oiitract  cxcrpt  for  iicirliirciu't'.''  I>ut  not  l»y  a 
notice  unasscMlt'd  to.*" 

§  ,"5.").  liiUnntri' — In  tin-  only  <asc  in  tlii>i  Siatc,  the  ijUfs- 
ti<in  was  not  iliri'clly  passed  upon."  'I'iic  rule  \V(»uM  prol)- 
al)Iy  l»e  as  in  ( ■<»nncetieut. 

§  ."{»).  Florida. — No  ea>e  on  the  exaet  jioint  Iia>  yet  arisen 
in  Florida.*'' 

,§  ."57.  (iiiinjiii . — In  the  eai'li«'sl  ease  in  tln>  Slate,  /'VnA  v. 
Cliapinan^  decided  in  1MI7,  it  was  held  that  notice-,  jc- 
eei|)ts,  and  contracts  in  restri<-tion  of  the  lialiility  of  a  com- 
mon carrier,  were  void  a>  aLiaiiisI  pul>li''  po|ic\  .  ')'hi> 
decision    i>   l)ased    principally    on    (imilil     r.    Ilill^^^    a    case 


t 


IH.ri .  \\  hill',  as  we  liaxr  sci'ii  ilir  nili'  in  lif,  ili.>  idii-liiii'liiin  iiiii<'t  In- 
Iiiii-I  •iliii-ijy  ii;.Miii-l  till'  (Iffi'inlaiii  -.  lli>liliii<;.  a«  we  I  In.  that  tlic  t'\ci'|»-- 
liioi  ill  ihc  I'lmiiai'i.  lui'  ilii'  iim^mm-  -laU'il.  iIck--  nut  cmmiiiiI  llic  lii-fciid- 
Hiii  •  fnnii  lii-sfs  resulting  fnnn  liic  iit'^li;friirc  of  ilio-r  ill  iiiar;;f  of  ili,' 
sitMiii  tiiiT.  it  ln'romcs  umi«'ci--:irv  lo  <lfi<-i'iiiiii<>  tiu'  iiimr  ilillli'iill  (|iic-<- 

tioli.  ill  till-  IM'i'srllt  .'t  ate  I  if   till'    ailtl|iil'itie<.  a>    In    the    pciwernf   eoliliniill 

carriiM!'  I»y  ."peeial  coiitran  i.i  eMuieriHc  tln'iii-clvr-  frmii  lialiilith  - 
uri>ln;r  from  the  iie;rliy:eiii-e  (if  tliiKc  >Mii|il<i\i'i|  liy  iIh-iii  ill  ilii'ir  lui-iin'-. 
of  earlier...  " 

•'- .Meiehaiil-  I>e4|);ii.li\e.  Co.  v.  (  .  riifoi;  li,  :H  "ol.  2*>i'  l^rTi;  NVc-leril 
riiioii  Tele^fiaiih  « '«(.  V.  (iialiani,  I  (  ol.  J.'id  1S7I  ,.  '|'|i«-»e  are  all  III'' 
eases  ill  tills  Stale. 

•' Weleli  V.  Uo-iton.  &*■.  K.  (  o..  II  (..nil.  W'X:,  ,\^~\  .  Iii-rworl  v. 
I.oDiiiei.  21  (  (Hill.  L'l.'i  (Kih;  ('aiii|»  v.  Ila-lford  \c.  .si.iunlH.al  «  ....  4.; 
Conn.  WWW  (is'ti) :  Lawrem*.-  v.  New  y<»ik  &.<  .  \{.  <  ,,..  ;H; «  <iini.  '".:<  f  Isiltn  ; 
Wale  V.  .New  .lersey  Steam  Xav.  Co..  1",  Cun,  .•,;{'.•  f|s|.{  . 

<' I'eck  V.  Wicks.  ;il  (  oiij^ .  1  I.*.  I.s.^;  ,  ')'J»iH  r»'»ialtiJiiir  ea-i--  »;•  ilii- 
.State  aiv  William-  v.  (Jraiit.  '  Conn.  1^7  (WW;:  f.siUe  \.  Iltinl.  W-'  <  ••nil. 
r);i(5  (1.S7I);  Cro>liy  v.  I'itcli.  I J  Conn.  Iln  f^'.'S . ;  «  ..nver-.'  \.  ,\.ir\i»;«li 
lie.  Trans,  ('o..  :i;!  Conn,  lui;    |m;:i. 

^'  Flinii  V.  I'iiilaili'lpliia  iVe.  I!   Co.,  I  Hmi-i.  i«;)    |<)?). 

<-m'e  Heniieit  V.  r"ilya\^.  I  l'!a.  10!  ls|7i  ;  IJr  .ek  \  O.ilc.  If  Fla.  .VJIJ 
(ls74,. 

'••  J«ia.  :U!i. 

"2  Hill.  (i-j;j  risjj  . 


ni. 


II.] 


rOWRIl  TO  I,IMIT  I.IAmi.ITY 


37 


wliicli  has  since  liccii  (tvcrnilcd/''  It  !•<  vci  v  <IiMr  that  it 
\vii>i  111)1  at  all  iH'ccssaiT  to  ctMisidtT  in  Fish  v.  ('/idpnifni, 
tlu>  (|ii(>.sti<in  wlictlicr  a  carrier  can  limit  his  lialiilitv  as  an 
insurer  hy  a  >|»eeial  ((inliact.  a>  the  evidence  showed  neirli- 
;r«'iire  (in  the  i)ai1  of  the  carrier.  The  fact,  in  ('(iiiijt/if//  v. 
Moi'Ki  /'  where  the  carrier  was  lield  lialde  (»n  tlie  ^rroinid  of 
.ie;jrlijr«'iice,  were  alni(t>l  identically  I  Ik-  sann-.  Five  yearrf 
liter  an  «'xce|)ti()n  in  a  hill  of  ladinir  nf  tlu'  "damage  of  the 
si'as,"  was  ••.iistained."  In  ('nojur  r.  liirri/.*"  \hv  matter  was 
a<rain  c<in'-idered  and  /'V.x//  r.  ( '/nl/iiiniii  was  overruled,  it 
lieinir  n«tw  iield  liy  the  Supreme  Court  that  an  exception  of 
loss  hy  lire  in  a  l>ill  of  la<linjr  was  valid,  al(liou;j:h  tiK'rc  was 
no  other  express  c(Mitraet  to  that  effect.  In  lliis  case  cotton 
was  shippe*!  on  a  steamer  rnnninir  on  a  iiv<'r.  It  was  I  In* 
•  •ust(mi  of  all  boats  to  ;rive  hills  of  huiin«r  c<mtaiiiin}jr  an  ex- 
ception a;i'ainst  tire,  which  was  well  known  1(»  the  ajrent  of 
the  shipper,  who  on  irivinir  aii  (U'der  for  the  cott(»n  said  that 
he  did  not  want  any  hill  of  lading'  .'>  he  did  not  know  tliat 
all  the  c(»tton  was  at  the  landinir ;  the  clerk  of  the  steanhs" 
Oil  receipt  of  the  cotton  made  out  a  liill  of  l:idin<f,  contain- 
iiiir  :ni  e\<'cptioii  of  pcril<  hy  lire,  Imt  the  Itill  of  l.idiuL''  an<l 
the  e((tton  were  '-(Kin  after  liurnt  \sith  the  hoat.  'Ihe  eotirt, 
McDdNAl.i).  .1.,  <li>sentini:.  Iield  that  the  loss  of  the  cotton 
nnisl  fall  on  the  owner  <if  it.  When  the  lase  eamt' licfore 
Ihc  coiicl  atrain  in  /A /•/ //  r.  fVx/y/c/-/'  the  co)>rt  adhere«|  to 
the  s:nMC  do(lrine.  Iiul  lichl  that  an  exception  as  to  tire 
wduld  not  reliese  the  carrier  fidin  liahilily  caused  liy  his 
own  neiflip'uic  or  that  of  lii->  >ervanls. 

Afh'l  Ihc^e  a  slalulc  wa  parsed  re(|uirini:  the  expretH 
a'-'^ent  of  the  ouiier  to  any  •  onira/ 1  llinlllii^  llic  liahilily  of 
II  eiiri'ii'i'i  iiiid  it  V, II-  held  ill  iSuuifiiin  /J.ijiiiMH  Ciiiiijiiini/  v, 


i 


♦•''  Met'  fiimt  $  .V'l. 

w  !f;ii|..  «;■  ■l>JI 


♦■  IJrowii  V.  (  l;r  Idii.  I  J  (III.  ."i  ;| 
'•  -Jl  (;:i.  .■;'(:    |,v:,7  . 


h-;i;. 


88 


Tin:  (  o.S  THAI  !,•.  OK  CAIMllKK.s. 


[<  II.    II. 


]\'iirfi>/:"  tliril  siicli  iissciif  would  mil  he  prcsiinicil  fidm  ;t 
iiific  iin'('|>laiH't>  of  !i  r<'<ri)i|  coiitMiiiinir  IIk-  fondilioii  o!" 
liiniiiitioii.  c.M'i-itl  :i'<  lo  :\  coiMlitioii  liiiiitiiii;  llic  aiiioinit  of 
ruiliili'v  to  !i  lixf'l  »iiiii  iinlrss  u  irmilcr  siiin  should  Itc 
Hpccilicd  in  llii'  r.'cci|)i .  Hiil  llic  cxiM't-ss  coiilriu-l  n'(|iiin'(l 
l)V  lli<"  stilt  nil'  iiiav  ill'  iiiadc  li\  parol,  and  pared  rvidciicr  i.-. 
ndiuissiMc  l(»  show  siicli  a  conlnicl  alllioiiiili  a  rrcfipt  was 
pvfii  l»y  a  clerk  of  the  carrier,  which  coiilaiin'd  no  restrict- 
ive clause.''  Where  IIm'  owner  of  the  ^jfoods  tills  up  a 
receipt  for  Ihein,  which  is  siifiied  liv  the  carrier  and  returned 
to  him,  contaiiiiii,<r  a  printed  clause  liniitin<r  the  lialtilitv  of 
the  carrier,  he  kiiowin^r  the  tei-nis  of  tin-  clause,  this  is  an 
express  contract  under  the  statute.''^  In  line  if  the  <»wiu;r 
assent  to  the  terms  of  a  receipt  iiiveii  to  him  hy  the  i-arrier, 
tills  will  he  an  express  contract,  and  the  (|iiestion  as  to  the 
assent  is  one  to  he  decided  l»y  tin;  jury  from  all  the  eircum- 
staneos  in  the  case."'^' 

§  .'58.  Illinitis. — In  Illinois,  coinnion  carriers  may  limit 
tl)'  ir  lial»ility  Ity  express  contract  ;  Itul  a  contract  must  he 
shown  ;  a  ireiieral  notice  hy  advertisement,  or  hy  conditions 
j)riiitcd  on  the  hack  of  a  hill  of  ladin;;,  receipt,  ticket  or 
other  voucher  will  not  do.*"  Conditions  inserted  in  a 
reci'ipt  or  Itill  of  ladinu;  iind  assented  to  hv  tin-  shipper 
will  hind  the  latter,  for  in  such  a  case  the  minds  (d"  the 
parties  ineetiiiir  as  to  the  conditiinis  on  which  the  property 
is  to  he  carried,  a  conlnict    is   made    in   the    terms   of  the 


Aii 


""HfKia.  (i:t:>  flS()7},  anil  s.c  MnsliiT  v.  SoiHiiiiii  Kx.  ('....  :is  (Ja.  :17 
(IStiS;. 

'^i  I'mct'll  V.  Sniitlii.ni  i:\|.n'<s  Ci...  :it  (la.  ;;i.->  (isi;i;;;  Suuiliciii  Kx- 
lH'i'v-i  I'll.  V.  !{anii'-,  itiKia.  ."t:i-J  (IMiT'i. 

■''-'  Wallacr  V.  .Malllii'ws,  \VM\:\.  (117  r|S(J!»). 

'"■'  Wallace  V.  .SaiidiT-.  12  (Ja.  |S(1  (|s7l).  'I'lic  ..tli.T  ca-c-  aiv  \\<-\\\  v. 
CiHipcr. -js  (ia.  r.i:i  iisriiii;  .Soiiilii-ni  Kxpn-s  ( 'u.  v.  Ni-why.  ;u;  (i  i.  (i;ir» 
(1S(I7);  SuntlnMii  I'Ixiucsh  Cm.  v.  rit|llllilll,  A'J  (Iii.  \\.l  (Is7l>;  Cfhlfal 
Miic  V.  I.uwc.  .'lO  (Ja,  rillU  I  Israj;  i'iasi  Tciim's^cc  li.  Cd.  v.  Mniit^'nui.Ty, 
44  <i;i.  •J7s  (Is7l  J. 

■' \Vi-;lcnrriaii~.  ('(I.  V.  N.'whiiil. -.M  III.  lOi;  rlsoi);;  III.  (',.1,1.  ij.  ('„. 
V.  I'raiilvciilii'iu-.  ,"il  111.  ss    is7iti. 


ihi 


^  \^.iiiJ^,'imaeit&'iaiiMr'^^\ii 


Cll.    II 


1 


|H>Wr.lt  To  MMIT  MAIUMTV 


Hi) 


n'(M'i|ii  (If  hill   of  l.idinj;.'^'^     Ami  cvni   l>_v  cxprcs.-*   (•(tntnu'l 
llii'V  arc  iml  mIIowimI  tu  avoid  (licir  lialtilily  for  Iomsos  .  aiiscl 
l»y  tlicir  own  or  llirir  st-rvaiits'  iifj.'li;^ciHc  oi*  wilful  iiiiscon- 
diMl,'"  or  Ity  tin-  laiU  of  rcasoiialilc  ('arc,"  as,  for  t'xaiii|»lc 
failin;^  to  prttviilr  cai's  willi   (lie  most    improviMl  plat  forms. 
§  ."{It.    Inilimiii.  —  III    Indiana   a   coininon   rairicr   may   l»y 


contract    limit    his  <-omiii  iii   law    lia 


>)ilitv 


i'Xct 


i?< 


iici'.'*     Hut  not  l>\  iiotici" 


pi  r 


or   m 


■^'li 


w  Aiifluii  FJiH-  V.  Dul.T.  t!S  111.  :»tlli  (1M7:»);  111.  <Vnt.  K.  Cit.  V.  Fruiik- 
«>ii1mt>,'.  .M  111.  ss  ils7(l);  W.'xHtii  Triuis.  Co.  v,  New  liall. 'il  III.  tCfi 
(iMMh;  riclij  V.  «'liifup..  elf..  K.  Co..  71  III.  ».".S  (1871  ;  III.  rent.  J{. 
Co.  V.  MorrUoii.  lii  III  i:K5(INr>7);  Cliiciipi.  clc.  U.  Co.  v.  Munifori,  (K» 
III.  17."i  (l>7l  ;  III.  <'.'iit.  |{.  Co.  V.  .Sinyscr.  Its  111.  ;t,Vl  ( 1^..:,  :  111.  Cent. 
H.  Co.  V.  Ufud.  ;i7  111.  1st  ( isii.'i)  ;  IJoskowil/,  v.  Ailiiiiis  Kx.  «  o.  r>  C»'iit. 
I,.  .J..;.s  (1S77):  llakor  v.  Mi.lii^'un  itf.  K.  Co..  Ii!  III.  7:1  (Is'!'".);  Ki'ic 
\<. 'rraiixpoitiitlon  Co.  v.  I)iilcr.  s  (cut.  I,.  .1..  2!t:l  (l«7!>);  .Mrrcliaiits 
|)i-|i:iit|i  Tniiis.  «'o.  V.  'riii'illmr,  sc,  111.  71    (IS77). 

*«  111.  Cent.  K.  <'o.  V.  .AdiiiiH.  \1  111.  -171  (IS(;7);  111.  Ct-iit.  U.  Co.  v. 
M<.rri-«(>ii.  Hi  111.  VM\  (lsr)7);  Hoskowlt/  v.  .Adamn  Kx.  Co..5C«Mit. 
1-.  J..  W  (IS77) ;  III.  Criit.  I{.  Co.  V.  Sinyscr.  :{8  III.  Xt\  (18«.^) ;  Krie  U. 
Co.  V.  Wilrox,  M  111.  -r.V.)  (187(1). 

*"•  Adams  Kx.  C...  v.  .St«'ttainTs,  til  111.  181  (1871). 

*■' Hoskowitz  V.  Adaii.s  Kx.  Co.. '>  Cfiit.  !-.  .1..  5S  (1H77).  '\'\w  othor 
«'rts<'s  ill  this  Stato  an-:  IJakcr  v.  Micliij^un  &.c.  |{.  Co..  VI  III.  7;»  (18(1(1); 
Opp'"''!"''""'"'"  V.  I'nitt'd  .sinU's  Kx.  Co.,  (ill  111.  (>2  (I87;J);  IViiiisylvaiiia 
Co.  V.  Kaircliild.  (;'.»  III.  2(i()  (I87;t;;  Adams  Kxpn-ss  Co.  v.  Ilayiu-s.  42 
III.  811  (ls(i(i) ;  Milwaiiki'c  Ar.  U.  Co.  v.  .Smith.  7<  111.  I!»7  (1S7I) ;  N'orlh- 
t-rii  Kiiic  I'aokft  Co.  v.  Shi-artT.  IJl  III.  2(i;J  (1871) ;  Merchants  Dispatch 
Trans.  Co.  v.  Holies.  80  111.  .17:J  (lH7r>) ;  Indianapolis  itc.  \\.  < 'o.  v. 
Slraiii.  81  III.  TiOt  (lS7»i) ;  Tyler  v.  Western  riiion  Telcfjiaph  Co.,  (10  111. 
421  (1871);  Illinois  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.  McChdlan,  M  III.  .S8  (1870);  Ameri- 
can Ac.  Kx.  Co.  V.  .Sillier,  .Vi  III.  110  (1«70);  Dnnsetli  v.  Wade.  :i  III. 
as.'i  (181(1);   Aineriran  Kxpress  Co.  v.  Perkins.  12  III.  4.'>8  (18(17). 

■■■■JSl.  I.owis  \i'.  H.  Cn.  V.  Smiick,  r.t  liid.  :!02  (1871) ;  .Miclii>,'an,  Ac., 
]{.  Co,  V.  Ilcaton.  M  Ind.  tJS  (ls7lj;  Ohio  Ac.  K.  Co.  v.  Selliy,  17 
Ind.  171  (1871);  fnited  Stales  Kxpiess  Co.  V.  Harris,  ."il  Ind.  127  (IS7r)); 
Adiims  Kvpicss  (o.  v.  Heajjan,  2!»  Ind.  21  il'''>");  Indianapolis  Ac  K. 
Co.  V.  Allen.  :!1  Ind.  ;<!»»  (ISCi!)) ;  Wii^'lit  v.  (;aff.  .1  Ind.  IKI  (l8,-).-|); 
Thayer  V.  St.  Konis  Ac  U.  Co.  22  Ind.  20  (18(11);  .\dains  Kxpress  Co.  v. 
l-'cndrii  k.  :t8  Ind.  l."i()  ( ls71 ). 

•'Indianapolis  Ac.  U.  Co.  v.  (!ox.  2It  Ind.  :!(!(»  (l8(iS) ;  Kvansville  Ac 
M.  Co.  V.  Yoiin;:.  28  Ind.  ."iK!  (18(17).  The  other  cases  are  :  Haiti  more  Ac. 
K.  Co.  V.  MeWhinney.  M\  Ind.  WW  (1871);  Indiana  Cent.  K.  Co.  v. 
Mnndy.  21    hid.  ts  (18(i;t);  Indianapolis  Ac.   K.  Co.  v.   Heaver,    tl    Ind. 


.■.'»'.■>. 


T^%. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


11^ 


^^    BIO 

us 


2.5 
2.2 


11.8 


1 1.4 


III 


1.6 


*" 


w 


A 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


33  WEST  MAIN  STRi^ET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y   14S80 

(716)  672-4503 


v 


iV 


[v 


•SJ 


;\ 


6^^ 


s 


40 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAKIJIEKS. 


[CH.   11. 


§  40.  Iowa. — In  this  State  it  is  provided  by  statute'"  tliat 
"in  the  transportation  of  persons  or  property  by  any  rail- 
road or  other  company  or  by  any  person  or  firm  engaged  in 
the  business  of  transportation  of  persons  or  property,  no 
contract,  receipt,  rule  or  regulation  shall  exempt  such  rail- 
road or  other  company,  person  or  firm  from  the  full  liabili- 
ties of  a  common  carrier,  which  in  the  a))sencc  of  any  con- 
tract, receipt,  rule  or  regulation  would  exist  with  respect  to 
such  persons  or  property,"  This  statute  does  not  affectt 
contracts  for  the  carriage  of  goods  beyond  the  carriers  own 
line,"'^  but  applies  to  all  contracts  made  in  this  State,  though 
to  be  performed  in  a  State  Mhere  no  such  legislation  exists.'* 
Another  statute  enacts  that  "every  railroad  company  shall 
be  liable  for  all  damages  sustained  by  any  person,  including 
employees  of  the  company,  in  consequence  of  any  neglect 
of  the  agents,  or  by  any  mismanagement  of  the  engineers 
or  other  employees  of  the  corporation,  to  any  person  sus 
tJiining  such  damage,  all  contracts  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
stJinding."^  But  prior  to  the  passage  of  these  statutes 
the  Supreme  Court  of  this  State  had  refused  to  release  to 
an}'  extent  the  conmion  law  responsibility  of  carriers.** 
TLo  statute  first  cited  covers  the  carriage  of  live  stock.'" 


493  (187:5);  Walpole  v.  Bridges,  5  Blackf.  222  (ISIW);  Indianapolis  &c 
R.  Co.  V.  Rennny,  l:J  Iiid.  518  (18.")?)) ;    United   States  Express  Co.  v, 
Rusli.  24  Ind.  40:j  (ISO")) ;  .Jeffersonvillc  Ac.  li.  Co.  v.  VVorland,  oO  Ind.  U;?!) 
(1875) ;  United  States  Express  Co.  v.  Keefer.  5<J  Ind.  2(5:5  (1877). 

61  Laws  18G0,  c.  i:i.  p.  121. 

«2Mulligrtn  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  ;50  Iowa.  180  (1S7:5). 

«3MoDaniel  v.  Cliieago  .ic.  R.  Co.  24  Iowa. 412  (18<58). 

«^Code  §  i:507,  an(^  see  Rose  v.  Des  Moines  &e..  R.  Co.  :$!»  Iowa.  21(> 
(1874).' 

65  Wliitniore  v.  Bowman,  4  G.  Greene,  148  (185:5) ;  Carsuii  v.  Harris,  Id. 
.516  ('854). 

66MeCoy  v.  Keoknlv  &e.  R.  Co.  44  Iowa, 424  (187(i) ;  Brush  v.  S.  A.  A 
D.  R.  Co.  43  Iowa,  554  (187(!).  Tlie  other  eases  in  Iowa  are:  Talbot  v. 
Mereliants  Dispatch  Trai.-.  Co.  41  Iowa.  247  (1875);  Rohinson  v.  Mer- 
chants Dispatch  Trans.  Co.  45  Iowa.  470  (1877);  German  v.  Ciiicago 
&c.  R.  Co.  38  Iowa,  127  (1874);  West  v.  The  Berlin,  3  Iowa,  532 
(185G),  Wilde  v.  Merchants  Dispatch  Trans.  Co.  47  Iowa.  272;  Id.  247 
(1877) ;  Bancroft  v.  Mereliants  Dispa'icli  Trans.  Co.  47  Iowa.  2(J2  (1877) ; 


I 


CH.  II.] 


POWER  TO  LIMIT  J^IABILITY. 


41i 


§  41.  luDhfas. — A  common   carrier  may  relieve  liinisclf' 
from  the  strict  liability  imposed  on  him  by  tlie  common  law 
by  a  special  contract ;  but  not  from   liability  for  his  negli- 


gence.''^ 

§  42.  Kentucky. —  The  rule  in  Kentucky  is  that  carriers- 
may  limit  their  common  law  liability  by  special  contract 
made  without  duress,  imposture  or  delusion,''*'  Imt  not  for 
negligence,  whether  ordinary  or  gross.*'"  But  they  can  not- 
limit  their  liability  by  a  general  notice.™ 

§  43.  Louisiana. — A  common  carrier  may  restrict  his' 
liability  by  express  special  contract  (not  by  notice),  but  ii^> 
liable  nevertheless  for  the  carelessness  or  unskilfulness  of  his 
servants."'  In  Jliggins  v.  J^ew  OHean.^  d'c,  Hailroad  Coin- 
pany,'''^  a  case  of  an  injury  to  a  person  while  riding  on  a  pass 
which  Avas  given  imder  an  agreement  that  the  plaintiff  would 
assume  all  risk  of  injury,  the  court  said:  "  Is  the  agreement 

Stewart  v.  Merchants  Dispatch  Trans.  Co.  47  Iowa.  2-21)   (1S77) ;   The 
Wisconsin  v.  Yoiuig, :?  G.  Greene,  208  (1851) ;  Mitchell  v.  United  State*' 
Express  Co.  46  Iowa,  214  (1877). 

•^Goggln  V.  Kansas  Ac.  K.  Co.,  12  Kas.  416  (1874);  Missouri  itc, 
R.  Co.  V.  Caldwell,  S  Kas.  244  (1871) ;  Kansas  vie,  II.  Co.  v.  lieynokls,  8 
Kas.  623  (1871);  Kallnian  v.  United  States  Ex.  Co.  W  K:is.  20.'i  (1865);- 
Kansas  Ac.  K.  Co,  v,  Nichols, !)  Kas.  225  (1872) ;  St.  I.onis&c.  R.  Co.  v. 
Piper,  i:<  Kas.  ,505  (1874);  see  also  Leavenw«)rth  &o.  R.  Co.  v.  Maris,, 
16  Kas.  X\\\  (1876) ;  The  Emily  v.  Carney,  5  Kas.  645  (1864). 

«»  Adams  Ex.  Co.   v.  Guthrie,  !)  Bush.  78   (1872);  Adams  Ex.  Co.  v. 
Nock.  2  Duv.  562  (1866). 

«»  Louisville  Ac.  R.  Co.  v.  lledper,  9  Biish.  645  (187!$) :  Rhodes  v.  Lou- 
isville ttc.  R.  Co.,!)  Rush.  688  (187:5);  Orndorff  v.  Adams  Ex.   Co..  :{• 
Bush.  I!t4  (1867) ;  Reno  v.  Hogan,  12  R.  Mon.  615  (1851). 

""  Louisville  itc.  R.  Co.  v.  Iledger,  9  Bush.  645  (187;{) ;  Adams  Expres'i 
Co.  V.  Xock,  2  Duv.  562  (1866);  Louisville  Ac.  R.  Co.  v.  Brownh'c.  1^ 
Cent.  L. . I.  101  (187!t)-  See  also  Adams  Exj)ress  Co.  v.  Loch,  7  Biisli. 
41)i»  (1870);  Bryan  v.  Memphis  &c.  R.Co.,  11  Bush.  .5!t7  (1875);  Cassilay 
v.  Young.  4  B.  Mon.  265  (184:5) ;  Gowdy  v.  Lyon,  !J  B.  Mon.  112  (1818)  ; 
Keith  v.  Amende.  1  Bush.  4.55  (1866). 

■'  Hoherts  v.  Riley.  15  La.  Ann.  10:i  (1860);  Simon  v.  The  Fung  Sluu-y.,. 
21  La.  Ann.  :{6;}  (1860) ;  New  Orleans  Mat.  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans  &i'.. 
\i.  Co..  20  La.  Ann.  :W2  (1868) ;  Baldwin  v.  Collins.  I)  Rob.  468  (1845). 

"28  La.  Aim.  i:i:{  (1876). 

The  other  cases  in  this  State  arc:  Mahon  v.  The  Olive  Branch,  18  La, 
.\nu.  107  (1866) ;  Frank  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  18  La.  Auu.  279  (1866)  :. 


wW 


42 


THK  CONTUACTS  OF  CAKItlEUS. 


[cir.  n. 


Itiwful?  All  contnicts  may  be  made  except  those  repro- 
bated by  law  or  public  i)olicy,  and  a  contract  by  which  one 
stiimlates  for  exemption  from  responsibility  for  losses  oc- 
casioned to  another  from  the  neixliojence  of  his  agents  or 
servants,  is  not  against  public  policy  or  forbidden  by  law ; 
but  if  the  losses  resulted  from  the  fraudulent,  wilful  or 
reckless  misconduc^t  of  the  agent  or  employee,  it  would  be." 
One  judge  dissented  from  this  doctrine. 

§  44.  Maine.^In  Maine  the  liability  of  a  common  car- 
riei  by  the  common  law,  may  be  restricted  l)y  notice,  but 
not  unless  the  customer  has  knowledge  of  the  notice,  and 
cither  expressly  or  impliedly  assents  thereto,  and  in  no  ease 
where  the  loss  or  damage  arises  from  misconduct  or  negli- 
gence." 

§  45.  Maryland. — In  1818  the  question  came  before  the 
.Supreme  Court  of  Maryland  whether  a  carrier  could  limit 
his  liability  by  a  general  notice,  but  the  court  waived  the 
(juestion,  holding  that  the  iiotice  in  that  ease  was  ambiguous 
and  therefore  inoperative.'^  In  Brehme  v.  Adams  Express 
Compamj,^''  decided  in  186G,  the  court  said  that  the  right  of 


\)     -1 


Dunn  V.  Brannci-,  III  La.  Ann.  4')2  (18.'8) ;  Lcvois  v.  Gale.  17  La.  Ann.  302 
(18G5) ;  Boycc  v.  Welch,  5  La.  Ann.  62^^  (1850) ;  Keinhcr  v.  Southern 
Express  Co.,  22  La.  Ann.  138  (1870) ;  Flash  v.  New  Orleans  &e.  R.  Co.,  %\ 
La.  Ann.  .'l.iH  (1S71) ;  Oakey  v.  Gordon.  7  La.  Ann.  2:J5  (18r)2) ;  P'assett  v. 
Riiark.3  La.  Aim.  6!)4  (1848) ;  Hunt  v.  Morris,  G  Mart.  670  (1810) ;  Went- 
worth  V.  'J'he  Realm,  16  La.  Ann.  18  (1861);  Ilatehett  v.  The  Conjpro- 
niise,  12  La.  Ann.  78!^  (lS.-)7) ;  Lewis  v.  The  Sncoess,18  La.  Ann.  1  (1866) ; 
Edwards  v.  The  Cahawba,  11  La.  Ann.  224  (18.i9) ;  Levy  v.  Tontehartrain 
R.  Co.,  -J:)  La.  Ann.  477  (1871) ;  Price  v.  The  Uriel,  10  La.  Ann.  41:1  (IS.V")) ; 
IJrauer  v.  The  Aln.oner.  IS  La.  Ann.  260  (1866) ;  Kelham  v.  The  Ken- 
sin;i;ton.  24  La.  Ann.  100  (1872);  Thomas  v.  The  Morning  (Jlory.  13  La. 
Ann.  26!)  (18.^)8);  Van  Hern  v.  Taylor,  7  Rob.  201  (1844) ;  Van  Horn  v. 
Taylor.  2  La.  Ann.  587  (1847). 

"Sager  v.  Portsmouth  &c.  R.  Co..  ;U  Me.  22S  (1850);  Fillebrown  v. 
(irand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  ,55  Me.  462  (1867);  Bean  v.  Green.  12  Mc  422 
(1SH5) ;  Little  v.  Boston  .i'c.  R.  Co..  6(5  Me.  %V,)  (1S76) ;  Willis  v.  Grand 

'Trunk  R.  Co..  02  Me.  4S8  (]S7:{). 

The  other  cases  arc:  Burnhani  v.  (;rand  Trunk  R.  (>),,  61!  M(\  2!)S 

v<lS7:{) ;  Plaisted  v.  Boston  iic.  Navij^ation  Co..  27  Me.  1:52  (1847). 
'<  Barney  V.  Prentiss,  4  II.  &  .1.  317. 
•"  25  Md.  328. 


ni.  II.] 


rOWKU  TO  LIMIT  LIAHILITV. 


43 


carriers  to  restrict  thoir  oonuuon  liiw  liiihility  by  oxpross  con- 
tract was  too  well  ostahlishcd  to  be  any  longer  questioned.'" 
The  (|iicstion  of  general  notice  was  waived  here  also.  Again, 
nine  years  later,  in  ^fcijoif  v.  Erit'i&c.  Transportation  Com- 
ptnn/,"  the  court  s:ii(l  that  common  carrie'-s  may,  by  special 
contract,  limit  their  common  law  liability  where  there  seems 
to  be  reason  and  justice  to  sustain  the  exemption.  But  the 
eontract  ought  to  l)e  in  clear  and  distinct  terms. 

§  K),  Maf<.'iac/tusett,'i. — In  limkland  v.  Adams  Express 
Vontpany,'^  it  is  said:  "It  is  no  longer  open  to  con- 
troversy in  this  State  tlmt  a  common  carrier  may  limit  his 
responsibility  for  jiroperty  intrusted  to  him  l)y  a  notice 
containing  reasonal)le  and  suitable  restrictio\is,  if  brought 
home  to  the  owner  of  the  goods  delivered  for  transporta- 
ti,  ,  and  assented  to  clearly  and  unequivocally  by  him,"  ™ 
M'liich  is  ecjuivalent  to  saying  that  he  may  do  so  by  con- 
tract* except  for  negligence.'*' 

f«  FoHowtMl  in  Biiltimore  Ac  R.  Co.  v.  Brady,  32  Md.  333  (1869) ; 
IJurikiird  V.  IJnltiniore  &i'.  R.  Co.  34  Md.  197  (1870). 

'' 42Md.  498  (187.')). 

Tlio  otli'.T  eases  arc :  Ferguson  v.  Cappcau,  6  H.  A  J.  394  (1825)  ;  Boyle 
V.  MoLaughliu.  4  II.  A  .1.  291  (1817) ;  Fergusgon  v.  Brent,  12  Md.  9  (IS.'.?) ; 
Biniey  v.  New  York  Ac.  Telegraph  Co..  18  Md.  341  (18(52) ;  McCann  v. 
B;iltlinnie  &i-.  R.  Co..  20  Md.  202  (1803);  MeClure  v.  Philadelphia  R. 
Co..:i4  Md.  r)32  (1871). 

''':i7  Mass.  124  (1807). 

'J  To  the  siune  effect  are  Brown  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.  11  Cash.  97  (1853) ; 
(}()tt  V.  Dlnsniore,  111  Mass.  45  (1872) ;  Malone  v.  Boston  &c.  R.  Co.  12 
Oray,  388  (18.59):  Jiidson  v.  Western  R.  Co.  0  Allen,  485  (1803);  Perry 
V.  Thompson,  98  Mass.  249  (1807). 

>*' Grace  v.  Adams.  100  Mass.  .■)05  ('.808);  Iloadley  v.  Xorthern  Trans. 
Co.  115  Mass.  304  (1874) ;  Pcmbcrton  Co.  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  104 
Muss.  144  (1870) ;  S(iiiirc  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  08  Mass.  239  (1867). 

-^i  School  District  v.  Boston  Ac.  R.  Co.  102  Mass.  .•),52  (1809).  Tlie  oth- 
vr  cases  in  this  State  relating  to  the  topics  of  this  treatise  are:  Gagt;  v. 
Tirrdl.!)  Allen.  299  (ISOt);  Tirrdl  v.  Gage.  4  Allen.  245  (1802);  Com. 
V.  Vermont  Ac.  Ji.  C.i.  108  Muss.  7  (1871);  Sullivan  v.  Thompson,  99 
Muss.  259  (1808) ;  Packard  v.  Earle,  113  Mass.  280  (1873) ;  Alden  v.  Poar- 
•sou.  3  (iruy.  312  (1855):  S mfonl  v.  Ilousatonii'  R.  Co.  11  Cusli.  155 
(ls,-,3);  Dwight  V.  B'-i>-.vsli"r,  1  IMck.  50  (1822);  Barrett  v.  Rogers,  7 
Miss.  297  (ISli);  llislhigs  v.  Pepper.  11  Pick.  41  (1831);  Phillips  v. 
Kurlc,  8  Pick.   \<1   ns2l)):  Knowles  v.    Dabney.  105  Mass.  437  (1870); 


IttV- 


^,1^ 


K 


44 


THE  CONTRACTS  OV  CAKHIKIJS. 


[CH.   II.. 


t- 


§  47.  Michigan. — In  1H53  it  was  decided  hy  a  divided 
court  that  the  coinmon  law  liability  of  a  carrier  could  not  be 
limited  by  contract.**'^  Six  years  later,  however,  this  case 
was  expressly  overruled.'*'  A  common  carrier  may  limit 
his  liability  by  contract  but  not  by  notii-e.***  It  is  declari'd 
in  this  State  l)y  statute  that  no  railroad  company  shall  be 
permitted  to  change  or  limit  its  common  law  liability  as  a 
common  carrier  by  any  contract  or  m  any  other  manner 
except  b}'  a  written  contract,  none  of  which  shall  be  print- 
ed, which  :.hall  be  signed  by  the  owner  or  shipper  of  the 
goods  to  be  carried.'*'* 

§  48.  Minnesota. — In  Minnesota  a  carrier  may  limit  his 
liability  as  an  insurer  but  is  not  permitted  to  exonerate  him- 
self from  liability  for  his  own  negligence  or  the  negligence 
of  the  agents  whom  he  employs  to  perform  the  trans- 
portation.*^ 

§  49.  Mississippi. — Although  in  1849  an  exception  of 
the  "dangers  of  the  river"  was  sustained, *""  the  power  of 
common  carriers  to  limit  their  liability  by  contract,  was  for 
some  time  an  open  question  in  this  State.  In  Southern  Ex- 
press  Company  v.  Moon,  decided   in    18()3,**  where  it  was 

Ellis  V.  Ainericiin  Telogniph  Co.  13  Allen,  226  (180(5) ;  Biirroii,<i;lis  v.  Nor- 
wich &c.  R.  Co.  100  Mils:,.  2G  (1808);  rciidcigast  v.  Adain>  Express 
Co.  101  Muss.  120  (1609). 

"^Miohigiin  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  2  Mifli.  r):{S. 

>«  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hale,  0  Mich.  24;{  (1859). 

""American  Trans.  Co.  v.  Moore,  5  Mich.  30S  (1858);  McMillan  v. 
Michigan  &c.  R.  Co.  10  Mich.  79  (1807).  The  other  cases  are:  Sissun 
V.  Cleveland  &c.  R.  Co.  14  Mich.  489  (1800) ;  Clevelan',"  &c.  R.  ("o.  v. 
Perkins,  17  Mich.  290  (1808);  Great  Western  li.  Co.  v.  Hawkins,  18 
Mich.  427  (1809);  Hawkins  v.  Great  Western  J{.  Co.  17  Mich.  ", 
(1808);  Merrick  V.  Wehster,  ;j  Mich.  208  (18.-.4);  Detroit  &.v..  R.  Co.  v.- 
Adanis,  1.5  Mich.  4rj8  (1807);  Gordon  v.  Ward,  10  Midi.  IJOO  (1808); 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Carov,  1,")  Mich.  525  (1807). 

«Mich.  Conip.  L.  1871,  p.  7'^J,  see.  2380. 

"^  Christenson  v.  American  L..press  Co.,  15  Minn.  270  (1870);  .lacolHis 
V.  St.  Paul  &e.  R.  Co.,  20  Minn.  125,  1  Cent.  I..  .!.,  125  (187:!). 

See,  also,  Cowley  v.  Davidson,  13  Minn.   92  (1808);  Christian  v.  St.- 
Paid  &c.  R.  Co.,  20  Minn.  21  (1873). 

"  Whitesides  v.  Thurlkill,  12  S.  &  M.  599. 

«« 39  Miss.  822. 


II. 


•  CU.  II.] 


POWER  TO  LIMIT  LIAIULITV. 


45 


(led 
1)0 
aso 
;iiiit 
lied 
!.(« 
.s  a 
iiicr 
iiit- 
tlu'. 


provided  in  an  receipt  j^iven  by  an  express  company  that 
the  <'()inpany  should  not  be  liable  for  dangers  of  railroad, 
ocean,  steam,  or  river  navigation,  etc.,  and  that  if  the  value 
was  not  .stated  the  company  should  not  be  liable  for  over 
$')0,  it  was  held  that  the  rei-eipt  was  not  binding  on  the 
bailor  unless  there  was  an  express  assent  on  his  part,  with  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  t»n-ms  of  the  special  contract  and  of 
the  legal  rights  therel)y  waived,  and  that  there  must  be  a 
consideration  for  such  a  waiver.  The  court  did  not  make 
anv  discrimination  between  the  different  clauses  in  the 
receipt ;  nor  did  it  pass  upon  the  (juestlon  as  to  the  power  of 
the  company  to  limit  its  liability  in  any  mode.  "The 
public  policy,"  it  was  said,  "on  which  the  extraordiiuiry 
Jiability  of  common  carriers  is  founded,  is  too  important  to 
be  thus  virtually  repealed  1)}'  the  fraud  and  circumvention 
■  of  artfully  contriwd  printed  or  prepared  receipts  thrust 
ui)on  those  to  whom  the  hurry  and  press  of  railroad  travel 
denies  the  time  for  examination  or  the  opportunity  of  fair 
.assent."  In  the  same  year  an  act  was  passed  prohil)iting 
railroad  companies  from  limiting  their  liabilitv  by  contract. **' 
l>ut  this  statute  was  repealed  by  the  Code  of  1871  ;  and  in 
1874  it  was  decided  that  in  Mississippi  a  carrier  may  by 
contract,  but  not  by  notic(s  provide  for  a  limitation  of  or 
exemption  from  liability  for  losses  arising  from  those  acci- 
dents and  casualities  which  prudence,  skill,  and  care  can  not 
rahvays  jjrevent  or  guard  against."" 

§  50,  Mi.'<sourL —  A  common  carrier  may  limit  his  liabil- 
ity l)y  contract,  but  can  not  exempt  himself  from  that  tj- 
sponsibility  which  every  bailee  assumes  for  ordinary  care 
.and  common  honesty.'''     "  lie  can  not  vary  his  liability  by 

«•»  MohiU^  itc.  U.  Ci>.  V.  Fniuks.  41  Miss.  404  (18(57). 

'•"  Mobile  i<:i'.  ]{.  Co.  V.  ■'.Vciui'r,  4!)  Miss.  72.")  (1874). 

Tlu>  other  i-mscs  in  this  Sliite  arc  Giliuore  v.  Cannaii,  1  S.  &  M.  270 
(lSj;i) ;  N.-al  V.  Sami'.lcrson.  2  S.  &  M.  .")72  (1844) ;  Vicksbiirjj  &e.  K.  Co. 
>v.  U.ijijsdalc,  4(>  .Miss.  4.")S  (1872) ;  Southern  Exi)re.s.s  Co  v.  lliiunicutt,  54 
..Miss.  .")0(i  (1877). 

"'  Ketehum  v.  Anierh'an  &c.  Ex.  Co.,  52  Mo.  390  (1873)  ;  Lupe  v.  Atlan- 
,!ie  &e.  K.  Co., .3  Mo.  (App.)  77  (187G);  Cantling  v.  Iluunibal  &o.  11.  Co., 


T  Ay   f 


w 


46 


TlIK  CONTKACTS  OF  CAIMilKItS. 


[ClI.    II. 


'1     1 

ft  i 


inscrliiif,'  ooiulitions  in  Iiis  iiccopiiuu'C  of  -roods,  hul  to  h:iv(5 
the  offoct  of  cxoiioriitinjr  him,  there  must  ho  a  spcciiil  con- 
tnu't  as.st'iiti'd  to  hy  tho  shii)i)i'r.  'llw  iirjrumcnt  in  fiivor  of 
the  rijrht  of  the  earrier  to  vary  his  lialiility  hy  iutnxhieiii;^ 
eonditions  into  his  aeceptanee,  is  founded  on  a  misconcep- 
tion in  considering  that  his  liahility  is  vohmtary  and  arises 
ex  cnntradu.  The  hiw  attaches  tho  responsil)ility  to  his 
empk)yniont  or  calling,  and  if  he  assumes  that  calling,  \w 
has  no  power  over  tho  duties  which  the  law  annexes  to  his 
ealliii".  His  assuming  tho  character  of  a  common  carrier 
depends  entirely  on  his  own  will  and  assent  ;  hut  if  lu;  un- 
dertakes that  occupation,  tlu;  liabilities  which  coinc;  upon 
him,  in  respect  of  goods  brought  or  borne  to  him  to  \n\  (;ar- 
riod,  are  imposed  by  law  and  not  created  by  assent  or  agrccv 
mcut.  *  *  Public  policy  and  fair  dealing,  on  which  tho 
extraordinary  liability  of  a  common  carrier  is  founded,  can 
not  be  undermined  and  frustrated  by  the  design  and  circuin- 
vention  of  artfully  prepared  printed  receipts,  contrived  i>y 
scheming  corporations  and  soulless  I'ompanies,  thrust  up(Mi 
the   public  without  an   opportunity  of  fair   assent  in   the. 

niMo.  :tS5  (187:t);  LfvcrinKv.  Ciiioii  Trans.  &c.  C'i),,.l2  Mo.  SS  (l^'w)  ; 
Kice  V.  Kansas  Ac.  ]{.  Oo.,  (JU  Mo.  'MX  (1S7(!) ;  Stiir^iffou  v.  St.  I.oiiis  \-c 
K.  Co.,  G5  Mo.  500  (1877);  Oxloy  v.  SI.  Louis  \-c.  K.  Co.,  (i.'.  Mo.  CJ!) 
(1877);  Clark  v.  St.  Louis  &f.  U.  Co.,  CI  .Mo.  410  (1S77) ;  Snider  v. 
Adams  Ex.  Co.  (W  Mo.  370,  1  Cent.  L.  .L  17!»  (1S7(;);  Kciid  v.  St.  Loiii* 
Ac.  It.  Co.,  110  Mo.  l!t!»  (1875).  "  ThtMc  can  he  but  little  doubt  as  lo  what 
is  the  doctrine  in  tliis  Stat<!  on  the  suliject.  .V  connnon  carrier  may,  l)y 
contract,  restrict  his  lia'.ility  as  an  insurer,  hut  his  iluties  as  a  common 
carrier  do  not  orijjliiaie  in  contract,  and  he  will  not  he  ix'rmitted.  whilst 
acting  as  a  common  cjirrier  for  hire,  to  sliirli  tlie  responsihilities  wliich 
tlie  law  afllxes  to  his  calling  and  to  assiuiie  tlie  position  of  an  ordinarj 
bailee.  Tlie  law  still  holds  him  to  a  higher  degree  of  i-are  tln.n  that  re- 
((uired  of  a  i)rivate  carrier,  and  the  ride  of  evidence  which,  for  the  \vis(\st 
reasons,  has  been  ado|)ted  in  this  ri'gard,  must  still  prevail.  The  (  o\\- 
signor  does  not  accompany  his  goods;  the  carrier  does.  The  earrier 
miist  aecoiint  for  them,  and  if  ihey  are  lost,  whatever  agreement  he  may 
have  made  with  the  owiK'r.  the  law  will  piesuuie  thai  they  are  lost  by  hi.>* 
fault,  and  in  the  absence  of  testimony  to  reliiit  this  picsumpliou,  li(» 
must  pay  their  value."  15al<ewell.  J.,  in  Kirby  v.  Adams  Kxiucss  ( 'o.,  2 
Mo.  (App.)  :U)!».  ;{  Cent.  L.  J.  -i:!.-)  (lS7i;) ;  Drvw  v.  lied  Lin.;  Transit  Co., 
3  Mo.  (App)  l!).")  (1877). 


H. 


cu 


"•J 


I'OWKK  TO  LIMIT  LIAIUMTY. 


47 


prosH  ami  liurry  of  railroiul  tnivol." '''^ 

§  f)!.  y<'hr(iska. —  In  Nohniskii  accMuinoii  carrier  can  not 
by  contract  absolve  hlinsolf  from  the  consecjnenees  of  liis 
nciilij'ence.'" 

§  .')2.  Nt'vada. —  There  an;  no  decisions  on  this  (|ucstion 
in  tliis  State. 

§  53.  New  JInmps/tire, — In  liennctt  v.  JJiitfon,'**  decided 
in  18.'l!>,  the  rule  laid  down  hy  the  Supreme  Couit  of  New 
Vork  in  JlollisU'r  v.  Nowh'n'-''^  that  common  carriers  by  a 
•general  notice  that  thv  l)a<jf<j;a<^e  of  i)assen;;ers  is  at  the  risk 
of  the  owners  can  not  alter  their  own  liability  was  cited  with 
approval  by  the  chief  justice,  thoujjfh  the  case  did  not  turn 
on  this  point.  Hut  in  1851  the  Supreme  Court  of  New 
Hampshire,  in  an  opinion  remarkable  for  its  learninfj;  and 
research,  decided  that  a  notice  unassented  to  by  the  shipiier 
was  of  no  avail  to  restrict  the  liability  of  the  carrier.'-"'  llis- 
liability  may  nevertheless  be  restricted  by  contract.''" 

§54.  Xcir  Jersey. — The  (pn'stion  has  not  often  arisen  in 
this  State.  In  GihhouH  v.  Wade,  decided  in  ISiO,''''  the 
court  refused  to  pass  upon  the  le<j;al  effect  of  a  notice  giv.Mi. 

^'  LovcrinK  v.  I'liion  Trans.  &c.  Vo.,  fi  Mo.  SS  (1S(!7). 

Tho  ifinaiiiiii^  ruses  in  this  Sl:il«!  on  tlic  <;('iicral  (iiu'stions  of  tliis  trea- 
tise arc:  Hini  V.  ("roinwell,  1  Mo.  81  (1S2!);  Little  v.  Seniple.  s  Mo.  !J!t- 
(lS.t:<):  Hill  V.  Stiir/^fon,  '2S  Mo.  iJ'iH  (isr;lt);  Carr  v.  Tlie  Micliijjan,' 27 
Mo.  liMI  (isns) ;  Stin7,'ess  V.  The  ("oluiiibus.  -JIJ  Mo.  TM)  (is.")!!) ;  Smith  v. 
Whitman,  V,\  Mo.  ;tr.2  (Isr.O) ;  Collier  v.  Valentiiie.il  Mo.  2!i;t  (ISIS); 
TufTKli'  V.  St.  I.ouis  Ae.  J{.  Co.,  (12  Mo.  425  (lS7(i) ;  I.andes  v.  I'aeilic;  I{. 
<."o..  r>()  Mo.  :Ut)  (1S72);  Sehutter  v.  .\danis  Express  Co...")  .Mo.  (.Xpp.)' 
:n«  (1S7S);  The  Missouri  v.  Webb.  !»  .Mo.  l!»;i  (1S15);  Coates  v.  I'liitcd 
States  i:xpress  Co.,  45  Mo.  2:»S(1S70);  I)a{,'i(ett  v.  Sliii\v,*J{  Mo.  2(U 
(is;?:?) ;  Wolf  V.  .\ineriean  Express  Co.,  4.i  .Mo.  421  (1S(J!»). 

'•'•''  .Vtchison  Ac.  14.  Co.  v.  Washburn.  5  \eb.  117  (1S70.) 

M  10  N.  11.  4S1. 

w  111  Wend.  2:54  (KSIW). 

w Moses  V.  Boston  &i'.  \i.  Co.  24  N.  II.  71  (1S51). 

t^  Moses  V.  Boston  &c.  It.  Co.  24  N.  II.  71  (1851);  Barter  v.  Whoe'er,, 
4'.)  N.  II.  SI  (iSOft)- 

See  also  Harris  v.  liand,  4  X.  II.  250  (1S27) ;  Graves  \.  Ticknor.  G  N.. 
H.  .'»:{7  (1s;M)  ;  (Jray  v.  .laekson,  51  \.  II.  !»  (1S71) ;  Myall  v.  Boston  \c.. 
R.  Co.  19  N.  IJ.  122  (1848)  ;  KixforU  v.  Sniitb   5'.i  N.  II.  356  (1872). 

^SN.J.  (Law)  255. 


'  %fi  iT* 


.48 


TIIK  CO.VTIIAf TH  OF  CAUKIKIIS. 


[C... 


II. 


if 


1)V  .1  cMrricr  by  wntcr  tlmt  he  would  carrv  for  oiic-lliird  less 
•ihiii  tlio  ('ust()iii;irv  price  Imt  would  "not  he  iiiiswcrahlc  for 
•  luiv  loss  in  the  Iriiiisportaliou  of  any  frcijriils,"  the  jury 
liaviiijr  found  llial  his  vcssid  was  not  in  ;;'ood  order.  In 
A'</nnoi'('  V.  Pi'nuKijh'iniia  Steam  ToiriiKj  Conipniii/,^'"  it  was 
rul'd  Hint  a  contract  losseiiinj^  a  carriors  responsibility  ouu;iil 
not  to  be  eonstrued  to  include  his  own  or  his  servants'  nejili- 
•irenee.  In  Iiinnfi/  r.  (U'ntral  Railroad  Cfniijxnii/,^'" a  eonlraet 
that  in  consideration  of  a  free  [)assa<re,  a  passenjjjer  would 
assume  all  risk  of  injury  to  his  person  from  the  nei;liirenee 
-of  the  servants  of  a  railroad  company  was  held  valid. 

§  55.  JVew  York. — It  was  at  tirst  held  in  New  York  that 
a  common  carrier  could  not  restrict  his  liabilities  by  any 
. contract  in  any  respect,""  but  that  doctrine  was  soon  over- 
ruled,'""^ and  now,  after  some  Huct nations  in  the  decisions 
caused  by  the  refusal  of  a  f(!W  judijjcs  to  assent  to  a  rule  so 
unjust  and  indefensible,""  it  is  the  settled  law  in  that  Stal<> 
that  carriers  may  by  special  contract  oxemi)t  themselves 
fr(>ni  liabilitv  for  losses  arisin*;  from  anv  de-jfree  of  carcli'ss- 
ness  and  neirliijence  on  the  part  of  their  servants  and 
.agents"*'  and  even,  it  is  said,  for  their  faults  and  wilful  and 


•'■'iSN..!.  (Law)  ISO  (ISOO). 

'•'lU  X.  .T.  (I.iiw)  .■)i:{  (lS(i!)) ;  :52  td.  407  (1SG8). 

See  al.-io  Tiifk'Tiiiaii  v.  Stephens  &e.  Trans.  Co.  32  X.  J.  (I.aw)  IVil 
(Lsr>7) ;  New  iJniiiswiek  Steam  Xavij^atioii  Ci.  v.  Tiers.  2t  X.  .1.  (Law) 
<(577  (185:{). 

'  '  (Joiikl  V.  Hill,  •_>  Hill  (!2;J  (1SI2).  In  Alexander  v.  Greene,  W  Hill.  20 
(1S12).  tJionson,  .T..  expressed  a  doubt  whether  a  coninion  carrier  could 
limit  his  common  law  liability  by  contract;  but  tlie  case  did  not  call  for 
a  decision  on  that  point.  The  case  of  Gould  v.  Hill,  had  not  then  been 
decided. 

'■-' Parsons  V.  Monteath.  l;i  IJu-b.  im  (18.>1);  Moore  v.  Kvans,  14  Rarb. 
r>24  (l.S.ri). 

'■•See  Parsons  V.  Monteath.  l;5  Rarl).  a.i:}  (18:)1);  Dorr  v.  Xew  .lersev 
Steam  Xav.  Co..  4  Sandf.  VM>  (lS.-)0);  .\lexander  v.  Greene.  7  Hill.  .-.:U 
(1«44);  Wells  V.  Steam  Xav.  Co..  S  X.  Y.  :t7.')  (IS,'):!);  Majfnin  v.  Dins- 
more.  :)  J.  A  S.  (X.  Y.)  1S2  (187:5) ;  (J  Id.  2S4  (1S74) ;  Ileineman  v.  (Jrand 
Trunk  R.  Co..  M  How.  Pr.  4:50  (lS(i(J)  ;  Keeney  v.  Grand  Tjnnk  I{.  Co.  .V.) 
,l5arl>.  104  (1870) :  all  of  which  cases  have  been  inoditied  or  overruled. 
■''<  Westcott  V.  Fargo,  (;;S  IJarb.  ;54!),  s.  c,  «  Lans.  :51!)  (1872) ;  West- 


4 


I II.  II.] 


I'owKu  T(»  i,i.\irr  i,iAitii,n\ 


4!i 


(•I'iniiii.il  iicls.'"'      l>iii  siif!)  a  coiiti'ii  t  ciiii  (tiilv  I>c  cvidciK^vil 
i»y  plain  and  umui.''tiikal»l('  lanjriiajrc.'"" 

Mill  the  New  V(irU  coiirts  i('c()jiiii/<-  iiotliiiiii' Init  a  coiitracl  ; 
a  coiimioii  caiTU'r  can  not  screen  liiniself  hy  notice  wlu^tlicr 
iii'(tui:lit  iiome  to  the  owner  or  not .  Nolice  is  no  evidence 
of  assent  on  tlic  pari  of  ilie  ownci'.  and  lie  li.'is  a  riji'lit  1(» 
repose  on  tlie  coninion-law  lialiilil y  of  the  cari'ier,  wiio  can 
not  i-elieve  liiniself  from  sndi  liability  l)y  any  act  of  liis 
own.'"' 


cott  V.  Kariro.  (11  N".  Y.  rti>  ns7.'>);  I-i'c  v.  Marsli.  2S  How.  I'r.  27ri. 
.•<.<•..  .i:»  Ihu-h,  102  (IWK);  Mcvciv.  MiiiiKlcri's  Kxprcss  Co.  24  Hitw.  I'r. 
•-"Id  flsilj):  Mcrcaiilil.'  Mm.  Iik.  (.•<..  v.  Clias.-.  1  lO.  h.  Siiillli.  lin  (IHoO) : 
<'rii;,riii  V.  N.  V.  i>;:c.  J{.  Co.  .".I  \.  Y.  (il  (1872);  Coiidict  v.  (irand  'rnnik 
|{.  Co,  ."tt  \.  Y.  ."idO  (1S7:{):  l-aiiil)  v.  Camdcii  Sir.  H.  Co..  4(1  N.  Y.  271 
(1H72):  Ilisscll  V.  New  York  Cent.  It.  Co..  2.">  N.  Y.  412  (18(12) ;  IVrkiiis 
V.  New  York  Cent.  U.  Co.  21  N".  Y.  1!M1{IS(;2):  Wells  v.  New  York 
Cent.  K.  Co.  24  \.  Y.  isi  (1S(12) :  Myiianl  v.  Syracuse  &e.  K.  (.'o..  71  N. 
Y.  ISO  (ls77);  Siclinve;;  v.  Krie  H.  Co..  4;t  \.  Y.  121!  (1S70);  Bos\v«ll  v. 
IIikNoii  Hiver  R.  Co..  .">  |{.»^\v.  (!!MI.  n.  <■.  10  Alih.  I'r.  412  (IS(iO);  French  v. 
Buffalo  iS;!'.  U.  Co.  4  Kcyc>.  i;is.  n.  c.  2  .Mili.  \]>\>.  Dec.  r.l(!(lS(iS);  Prcn- 
llcc  V.  Decker.  10  Mwrli.  21  (ls(l7):  I.iiiiiiurf,'er  v.  Westcott.  40  Marl*.  '1K\ 
(1807):  .Suuilcriand  v.  Wesicoii.  2  Sweeny.  2(10  (1^70);  Suillh  v.  New- 
York  Cent.  K.  Co.  20  Barb.  i:(2  (lS.-)0):  anirined  24  X.  Y.  222  (18(52): 
(iuillaiMue  v.  Ilaniliur:,'  \c.  I'acket  Co.  42  \.  Y.  212  (187(»);  Nt'lsou 
V.  Hudson  ]{iver  If.  Co.  |s  X.  y.  .|0S  (1872):  Nicholas  v.  New  York 
('cut.  ^i-.  K.  Co..  4  lliui.  ;127  (l''7.">). 

I  'Knell  V.  Culted  Slates  Ac.  Stcaiuship  Co.  :i:{  \.  Y.  (Supr.  Ct.)  421! 
(1871).  In  till-;  ca>c  it  is  su;r.irested  that  a  corporation  can  not  contract 
for  e\cni|)tiou  from  rcsponsihiliiy  for  th?  ne,i;lijrence  .ir  inisconduct  of  il^- 
hoard  of  directors. 

'  «  Condicl  V.  CJraiid  Trnuk  K.  Co.  .Vl  \.  Y.  r.(M  (]87:{) ;  Land)  v.  Cam- 
den &r.  I{.  Co.  I(!  \.  Y.  271  (1872);  Lamb  v.  Camden  Ac.  K.  Co.  2  Daly. 
t.Vt  (18(10) ;  KiU'll  V.  I 'iMted  States  A,-.  Steamship  Co.  2U  \.  Y.  (Supr.  Ct.) 
42:1  (1871) ;  French  v.  l^uffalo  &v.  R.  Co.  4  Keyes.  108,  .x.  c  2  Ahh.  App. 
Dec.  10(!  (lS(i8):  Sudtli  v.  New  York  Cent.  u".  Co.  2!»  Barh.  i:{2  (1860): 
alllrmed.  24  N.  Y.  222  (lStJ2);  Stoddard  v.  Lon<j  Island  II.  Co.  .'>  Saiulf. 
180  (is.->r) ;  Edsall  V.  Camden  Ac.  Jt.  Co.  .")()  N.  Y.dOl  (1872) ;  C.uilliuime 
V.  Ilamltiir^'  Ac.  Pacliet  Co.  42  N.  Y.  212  (1870):  (Meadell  v.  Thompon. 
.V;   N.  Y.  104   (1874);  Stedinan  v.  Western  Transportation  Co.  48  Barh. 

07  (I8(i(;). 

'"'  Jlollisterv.  Nowlen.  10  Wend.  2:J4  (1838) ;  Cole  v.  (Joodwin,  10  Wend. 

2r)l    (18:{8);  followed  in  Camden  Ac.  Trans.  Co.  v.  Belknap,  21  Wend. 

:t.")4  (18;{0);  see  also  Clark  v.  Faxton,  2(i  W^'nd.  15:{  (18:50);  Powell  v. 

Myers,  2((  Id.  r.Ol  (1841);    Alexander  v.   Greene,   3  Hill,  1>;    7  Id.   5;W; 

4 


^f?n^ 


I 


50 


THK  CONTWACTS  OF  C AKIMKUS. 


l<\\.   II. 


§  :•(;.    Xorf/i    Cornh'iHi — III    tliis   Stiitc   it    is    held    IIimI    ;i 
liiiiilcd   liiil)ilily  niay   !»»'  <M)iitnictf<|  for   except    for    nc^li- 

hdiT  V.  Ni'W  Jersey  Steimi  \:iv.  Co..  11  N.  Y.  IS.'i  (IS.Mi;  Wesicntl  v. 
l''mx<>.  ti^t  Hull.  :il!i.N.  r..  (1  I,im^;il!t  (IS72):  niii»<i>iii  v.  ImhIiI.  Ill  N.  V. 
•ilil  (IM71>);  MeiVMlHile  .Mill.  ItW.  ('.).  v.  Clliixr.  1  K.  1 ).  .Smith.  I  1.")  (I  v.MI)  : 
Nevllis  V.  H:i>  Slate  Sleiimln.nt  ('....  I  IlO'W.  L'l'.'i  ilS.V.I);  Prelllire  \. 
Deeker,  l'.>  Itiul).  21  ( I>i'i7) :  I/milniruer  \ .  We»tei>tt.  Ill  Harl), 'JSU  ( I.s(i7) : 
SiiiKlerliiiid  V.  Westeott,  \i  Sweeny.  2(il)  il><7lt);  Slnemii  v.  Kiiiivliilii. 
7  Hill,  211'  (isilt);  Miuliiii  v.  Slieiaid.  10  .J.  i<:  S.  :!.'i:!  (1^77).  nllliineil. 
7;J  N.  Y.  :t;>.  (1>7S);  Maekliii  v.  New  Jersey  Sleuiiilmat  < 'o.,  7  AMi.  I'r. 
(N.  S.)  22!)  ISd'.i);  Wont  In  iff  v.  Slieri'anl.  it  llmi.  :I22  {is7(lj:  Itawsoii 
V.  I'eimsylvaiila  K.  Co.  2  AM).  I'f.  (N.  S.l  2211  (  1MI17).  IS  N.  Y.  212  i  |S72). 
'I'lie  other  eases  in  this  State  on  the  snliji-el  of  this  treatise  are  ;  Arend 
V.  Liverpool  i^c.  Steam,  (-'o..  (i  I.ans.  I.")'.i.  (il  ll.irli.  llS(ls72i:  Ayinar  v. 
Ast.(»i'.  I)  Cow.  2(ill  (1S2());  .Etna  Ins.  Co.  v.  NVheeler.  lU  N.  Y.HK)  iis72): 
Bree.se  v.  Knlled  States  Telej,naiih  Co..  IS  N.  Y.  i:S2  (1S71);  llissel  v. 
Catnphell.  51  V.  Y.  :i').\  (lS7;i) ;  Hrownliiy;  v.  I.oni;-  Islami  K.  Co..  2  Daly. 
J17  (18(17) ;  lJoslwi(!k  v.  Uallimore  i^te.  ]{.  Co.  I.")  \.  Y.  712  (1.S71 ) ;  Hah- 
o<H!k  V.  LiikeSlioro&(!.Co.,-l!»  X.  Y.  4!)1  (IS72);  Jlel;;er  v.  I)lnsmoie.,-)l  N. 
Y.  !(!(!  (1M72) ;  Blossom  v.  Cilllln.  1:1  \.  Y.  .VU)  ( ISM) ;  ( 'oehian  v.  Dins- 
moi-e,  4!)  N.  Y.  24!t  (1.S72);  Collin  v.  New  York  Cent.  It.  Co..  (11  Bafli. 
37»  (1872);  Collins  v.  Bmiis.  :$()  N.  Y.  (S.  C.)  "ilS  (1S7:J) ;  Collins  v. 
BnniH.  (5:!  N.\.  1  (1M7."));  Collender  v.  Din-more.  (il  Barh.  4r)7  (1^7:1): 
ColhMider  v.  Dinsmori",  .w  N.  Y.  2()ii  (ls7:'.):  Klliott  v.  IJossell.  I().Fohn>. 
1  (18i;{);  Fairehild  v.  Sloeiim.  1!)  Wend.  :t2!t  (ISUS,;  Kaiivhild  v.  Sloenm. 
7  Illli  2!)2  (IS4;!);  Kihel  v.  Livingston.  (!4  Bai-h.  17!l  (1S72):  Falkenan  v. 
Fargo, :?!)  N.  Y.  (S.  C.)  'XVl,  x.  r.  41  How  I'r.:i2.")  (1S72) ;  First  National 
Bk.  V.  .Shaw,  01  N.  Y.  2s;t  (1S74);  Freeman  v.  Newton.  :<  E.  D.  Smith. 
24()  (1S.")4);  (Jit)son  v.  Anieri<'an  Merchants  Fx.  Co..  1  Hun.  ;{S7  {1S74): 
Ue.rinania  Firi'  Ins.  (Jo.  v.  Memphis  &r.  ]{.  Co..  72  N.  Y.  Ill)  (1S7S): 
Goddard  v.  Mallory.  .Vi  Barh.  S7  (ISdS);  (ioodrieh  v.  'I'liompson,  I  Kohl. 
75  (ISOO);  (ioodrieh  v.  Thompson.  14  N.  Y.  1124  (1S71):  Hill  v.  Syraens,. 
&e  ]{.  Co.,  8  Hun.  2!)(»  (1870);  Hill  v.  Syracuse  A«'.  1{.  Co.  7:1  N.  Y. 
:m  (1878);  lleineman  v.  CJrand  Trunk  H.  Co..  :{l  How.  I'r.  4:5(1 
(1800);  Hinkley  v.  New  York  Cent.  &c.  U.  Co..  :\  Tlionij).  iS:  C.  281 
(1874);  Ilinekloy  v.  Now  York  Cent.  Ac.  11.  Co..  .V;  N.  Y.  42!)  (1874): 
Harmony  v.  Bingham,  1  Diier,  201)  (IX.VJ);  Harmony  v.  Bingham.  12  N. 
Y.  9!)  (18,-)4);  Herslield  v.  Adams.  1!)  Barli.  .■)77  (Is.-,:,):  Holford  v. 
AdamH,  2  Dner,  471  (IS,-,;}) ;  Johnson  v.  New  York  Cent.  U.  (_"o..  ;?1 
Barb.  1!)0  (1857);  .lohnson  v.  Xew  York  Cent.  K.  Co..  ;t;{  N.  Y.  OK) 
(1805);  Kirkland  v.  Dlnsmore.  4  Thonii).  A  C.  :!()l  (1871):  Kirkland  v. 
Dinsnioro,  02  N.  Y.  171  (187."));  Eamh  v.  Camden.  \c.  K.  C(,..  |  Daly. 
48;i  (1873) ;  Long  v.  Xew  York  Cent.  H.  Co..  ,■>()  X.  Y.  70  (1872) :  Lands- 
berg  V.  Dinsmore.  4  Daly,  l!)()  (187:i) ;  Meyer  v.  Peck,  2s  X.  Y.  .5!))) 
(1864);  Maghee  v.  Camden  &e.  K.  Co.,  45  X.  Y.  51 1  tl871):  Moriarty 
V.  Flanideir.s  Ex.  1  Daly,  227  (1802) ;  Manhaltan  Oil  Co.  v.  Camden  Ac  1{. 


•ir.  II.] 


I'OWKIt  TO  LIMIT  LIAIUMTV. 


SI 


L'ciuH'.''"*  Altlio,i;rli  coiuinon  ciirricrs  (.'an  not,  hy  a  j^cMioral 
iiDticc  ol'  "Jill  hairf^iiLTi!  at  owikt'h  risk,"  fret'  (liciiis(>lv(>s 
from  lial)ilily,  tlicy  may,  l»y  spucial  notice  l)rou<;l»t  to  tlin 
I\iio\vI('(1l'<'  of  till'  owner,  r('asoiial)lv  (inalifv  tlicir  lialiiiitv 

(It  ^ 

for  loss  of  hritlic,  pcrisliablt!  (>r  unusually  valnal)l('  articles.'"''' 

§  .')7.    Ohiu. — In  IS.J7,""  (iiioLsoN,  .].,  referring;  to  a  ease 

decided  in  this  State  in  1<SK),"'  in  which   il  was   held  that  a 


(■o..:il  N.  Y.  lit;  (ls7:i);  .-)  Alil).  (\.  S.)  2sl»  (isc-i) ;  .M;iH:aIii  V.  DlnsiiiDr.', 
11-2  N.  Y.  :ir>  ils7."t);  Mau'aiii  v.  Diiisiiinrc.  :i.I.  X  S.  IS-J  (IsjUj;  M;ijr|iii,  v. 
Itiii<mi>i".  tl  .1.  I'v:  s.  -JlSflsTI);  .M:iM;iiiM  V.  l)iiHnii>n',;'i;i  X.  Ww^l  (ls7;i); 
Majjiiiii  V.  I>insiiii>it'.  7i)  N.  Y.  lid  (iS77);  Myimnl  v.  Synicii-f  I'irc.  U. 
Co..  7  Ilmi..  li'.m  (l-^ti);  MfrnimlUi-  lii^.  Co.  v.  Cali-lis.  ■_'(»  N.  \.  \T.\ 
(IS,-:));  MrAflliiir  v.  Scurs. -ji  w.mkI.  1!I(»  (Is:!',Ij  ;  \-\v>tii(ll  v.  Adam-^.  .') 
H'liT.  i:!  (Is.Vd;  t>raii;,'c  Comity  IJaaiv  v.  IJrowii.  !•  \\'v\v\.  sr.  (is.lj); 
i'ricc  V.  llarMiorii.  II  Marl).  (i.V)  (18(ir»):  Price  v.  I'owi-ll.  11  \.  Y. 
Ml  (is:,l();  IViiii  V.  Huff,  lo  I'cc.  II.  Co.,  4!»  \.  Y.  201  (lS72j;  Place 
V.  I'liioii  Kxpiess  Co..  2  Hilt.  Ill  (IS.-)S);  Plielpsv.  WiiliaiiKon,  5 
.Samir.  .".7.S  (1S.V2);  (^iiimhy  v.  Vaiulerbilt.  17  \.  Y.  liOO  (IS.'iS);  Itawson 
V.  Ilollaiid,  .->!)  \.  Y.  C.ll  (1S7.".);  Uedpatli  v.  Vaii^'lian.  .Vi  Barb.  4S!) 
(isds);  l{c(l|)aili  V.  Vaiiniian,  4S  N.  Y.  (m.")  (1S7I):  UicluMts  v.  JJalii- 
m!)ro  Ac.  K.  Co.,  (11  IJaih.  1S(1S71);  Head  v.  Spaiildiiisj,  .")  Uosw.  :»1)3 
(IS.-)!)) ;  Jieeil  v.  Tiiited  States  Kx.  Co.  4S  N.  Y.  I(J2  (IS72) :  Seliieffeliii  v. 
II  irvey.i!  .loliiw.  170.  Aiuli.  ."ill  (iSlOj ;  Steers  v.  LiviM-pnol  .\:c.  Steam.  (Jo., 
.->7  N.  Y'.  1  (is7t) ;  .Sweet  v.  Harney.  2U  X.  Y.  :U.-)  (IS(il) ;  Stiiison  v.  New- 
York  Cent.  11.  Co..  :i2  .\'.  Y.  \VX\  (isir));  Spinetto  v.  Atlas  Steainihip 
Co.,  U  lliui.  lOi)  (1S7S);  Slielton  v.  Mereliants  l)i<p;Ueli  (Jo.,  :i(i  X.  Y". 
(S.  (J.)  027  (1S7;J);  Sheitoii  v.  .Merchaul-i  l)i.ip;itcii  (Jo.,  .■>!)  X.  Y'.  2.-).< 
(1S7I);  Soiimet  V.  N'atioiial  lOxpress  Co..  (10  Barl).  2'U  (^187:1) ;  Sliorman 
V.  HiidsdM  i^e.  U.  Co..  <ll  N.  Y'.  2.>t  (1S7(!) :  Simmons  v.  Law,  S  IJo.s\v. 
2i:{  (ISiil);  Simmon-i  v.  Law.  ;{  Keyes.  217  (ISiKij;  Tysen  v.  Moore,  51) 
Bill).  112  (IS7(»):  'rierney  v.  Xew  Y'ork  Cent.  Jt.  Co.,  10  Iliin.  mS) 
(1S77) ;  Vrooman  v.  Ameiieaii«X:c.  Express  Co.,  .■)  N.  Y.  (S.  C.)  22,  2  Ilnn. 
.■)12  (IS7I) ;  Van  Winkle  v.  Adams  Kxpre>s  Co..  W  Kot)t.  W.)  (18(il) :  Wliito 
V.  Van  Kirk,  2.")  Barb.  1(1  (iS.Vj) :  Wolfe  v.  Myers.  ;i  Sandf.  7  (ISt!)); 
Wet/.ell  V.  Dlnsniore.  .Vt  X.  Y'.  4!)()  (IS7:5) ;  Wooden  v.  Austin,  .^l  Marl).  i» 
(IS(iU);  Witl)eek  V.Holland.  .->:>  Barl).  I  IK  (1S70) ;  Youni,'  v.  Western 
I'nion  T.'lejrrapli  Co.  :U  X.  Y.  (S.  C.)  :i!M)  (1S72) ; /lln,^■  v.  Howhuul, 
.".  Daly,  i:{(!  (IS74). 

"^^  Lee  V.  Italeijih  ^:e.  H.  Co.,  72  \.  i\  2:50  (1S7.-)). 

•"'J  Smith  V.  Xortli  Carolina  M.   Co.,  OtX.  C.  2;{.j  (ls7l)j;  Williams  v. 
Brandon.  I  Mnrphey.  417  (ISIO). 

See  also,  Harvy  v.  Pike.  X^  (J.   Term.  Kep.  S2,  .•*.  v.  7  Am.   Deo.   (iO.S 
(1S17);  Capcliart   v.  Seaboard  Ac.  J{.  Co.  77  X.  C.  .','m  (IS77). 

""  Union   Mutual   Ins.  Co.  v.  Indianapolis  &.^\  \{.  Co.,  1   Disney,  480. 

'"  Jones  V.  Voorhees,  10  Oliio.  1 1"). 


\? 


y 


:  '-^^laMMMaHM 


52 


THE  CONTUACT8  OF  CAKIURIJ8. 


[CH.   II. 


proprietor  of  a  stage  coach  could  not  liniil  lii.s  liabiliiy  for 
the  ba<ru'!'"'e  of  a  passonirer  by  a  notice  that  it  was  carried 
at  his  own  risk,  doubted  whether  the  huv  of  Oliio  woukl 
permit  a  common  carrier  to  restrict  his  liability  either  by  a 
notice  or  Ji  special  agreement.  But  in  Davidson  v.  (fni/iam, 
decided  four  years  earlier,"^  the  doctrine,  now  the  well 
settled  law  of  this  State,  had  been  announced,  that  a  com- 
mon carrier  can  not  restrict  his  liability  by  notice,  verbal, 
wr'tten  or  printed,  even  when  brought  to  tlie  knowledge  of 
the  owner  or  employer,  and  that  although  ho  may  l)y  con- 
tract restrict  his  liability  as  an  insurer,  hv  can  not  stij)u]ate 
for  a  less  degree  of  care  und  diligence  in  the  discharge  of 
his  duly  than  that  which  pertains  to  his  peculiar  trust  as  a 
bailee.'"'^' 

§  58.   Oregon. — There  are  no  cases  in  point  in  this  State. 

§  59.  Pennsijlva^iia. —  All  the  cases  in  this  State  agree 
that  a  common  carrier  can  not  contract  foi'  exemption  from 
the  consequences  of  his  own  or  his  agents'  negligence.'" 
In  Pennsylvania  a  carrier  may  limit  his  lialiillty  by  a  clear 


is 


I  i 
t 


112  2  Ohio  St.  131  (IS.-):?). 

113  Followed  ill  Oraliam  v.  l)ii\is.  4  Ohio  St.  :i(i2  (is.")!);  Welsh  v. 
Plttshurg  »«:.■?.  R.  Co..  10  Oliio  St.  (m  (1S,-)1I);  Cleveliiiid  Ae.  li.  Co.  v. 
Cumin.  1!)  Ohio  St.  1  (l.sOil);  Ciiicimmti  &e.  K.  Co.  v.  I'oiitiiis.  [(1.221 
(18(i!)):  Knowltoii  v.  Erie  K.  Co.  Id.  2(;()  (ISi'.i));  riiitcd  Slates  Kxpress 
(Jo.  V.  Biichinan.  2  Cin.  2.-)l  (1872):  iiffiniied,  2s  Ohio  St.  Ill  (IS?,-.); 
Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Loekwood.  2S  Ohio  St.  liHS  (1870);  (iaines  v.  riiioii 
Transportation  Co.  id.  41S  (1S70) ;  Union  Express  Co.  v.  Graham.  2(> 
Ohio  St.  .">0.)  (l!S7.i). 

Tiie  remaining  eases  in  Oliio  aro;  Cliilds  v.  Little  Miami  U.  Co..  I  Cin. 
480  (1871) ;  Lawrence  v.  McGregor.  Wright.  VX\  {\iiX\) ;  May  v.  JJaheoek. 
4  Oliio,  :W4  (1S2!I):  Muller  v.  Cincinnati  &o.  li.  Co.,  2  Cin.  280  (1872): 
Fatinau  v.  Cincinnati  Ac.  R.  Co.,  2  Disney.  248  (IS.'jS) ;  Wayne  v.  The 
General  Pilve.  1(1  Ohio.  421  (!847);  Davis  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph 
(;o.,  1  Cin.  100  (1870)  :  McGregor  v.  Kilgore.  (I  Ohio.  :)r)S  (18154). 

1"  Beckman  v.  Sliouse, ,')  Rawle,  1', .,  (1835) ;  Atwood  v.  Reliajiee  Trans. 
(;o..O  AVattiJ,  87  (1830);  Camden  &c.  R.  Co.  v.  Raldauf.  HI  Pa.  St.  fJ7 
(1851);  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  57  Pa.  St.  335  (18(58) ;  Peimsyl- 
vania  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson.  51  Pa.  St.  315  (18(15) ;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
McCloskey,  23  Pa.  St.  52(3  (18.54) ;  Goldey  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  f  ;o.,  30  ]'a. 
St.  242  (1858);  Empire  Transportation  Co.  v.  Wamsutta  &c.  Oil  Co..  (53 
Ta.St.  14  (1860) ;  American  Express  Co.  v.  Sands,  55  Pa.  St.  140  (1SG7) ; 


K  .> 


cii.  ir.] 


roWEU  TO  LIMIT  LIAHILITY 


5.) 


iuul  explicit  ixciirral  notice  brouj^ht  lionu!  to  the  employer.'''' 
This  doctrine  .seems  to  be  well  estiiblislicd  here.  In  Lahn/ 
r.  Colder, ^^^  Bei.l,  .1.,  siiys :  "The  expediency  of  reco<i- 
iiizinii"  in  him  ["the  ctirrierl  :i  riirht  to  do  so  I)v  "'eneral  no- 
tice,  such  as  Avas  <>iven  hei'e,  has  been  strongly  and  justly 
•  luestioned,  and  in  some  of  our  sister  states  alt(>ixether  de- 
nied. Were  the  ((ueslion  an  o))en  on<i  in  Pennsylvania,  I 
should,  for  one,  unliesitatingly  follow  them  in  repudiating:  :» 
principle  which  places  the  bailor  absolutely  at  the  mercy  of 
the  carrier,  whom  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  he  can  not 
l)ut  choose  to  emi)l()y."  The  person  with  whom  the  carrier 
di'als  must  be  fully  informed  of  its  terms  and  its  effect. 
The  exception  goes  on  the  ground  of  a  contract,  express  or 
implied.  Wliere  the  notice  was  in  the  English  language,  and 
the  passenger  was  a  (Jerman  who  did  not  understand  Eng- 
lish, it  was  held  to  be  incumbent  on  the  carrier  to  prove 
that  the  i)assi'nger  had  knowledge  of  the  limitation  ;  and 
that  if  tickets,  without  anything  more,  are  evidence  of  a 
special  contract,  yet  they  must  be  printed  in  a  language 
which  the  passenger  understan-ls,  or  their  terms  must  be  ex- 
plained to  him."^ 

Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Sliiiri)loss.  "7  Pa.  St.  51(1  (IS",')) ;  Ainoriciin  Ex- 
l)ivss  Co.  V.  Second  Natioiud  Bank,  (il)  Ta.  St.  :{!)4  (isri);  l'\irnliam  v. 
(  aiuden  &e.  R.  Co..  .")5  Pa.  St.  aii  (l.S()7)  ;  Luecsco  Oil  Co.  v.  Peniisylva- 
iiia  It.  Co.  2  Pitts.  477:  Powell  v.  Pennsylvania  U.  Co.,  :52  Pa.  St. 
•114  (IS,")!));  Kit?.  V.  Pennsylvania  11.  Co.:!  J'liila.  S2  (1S.*)S) ;  Gordon  v. 
Little.  ,S  S.  &  H.  -);!;!  (1S-J2) 

"••'  IJei'knian  v.  Slionse.  .J  Jtawie,  17!)  (ls:i."))  ;  I,;nn,;;  v.  Colder.  8  Pu.  St. 
471)  (1.S4S) ;  Binj-hani  v.  J{o;rers.  (J  W.  it  S.  4!).")  (1S4;5) ;  VeriKM-  v.  Sweit- 
zer,  ,i-2  I'a.  St.  208  (18.")8)  ;  Pennsylvania  U.  Co.  v.  Seli\vaiv,enl)ei';j;er,  4;") 
L'u.  St.  -iOS  (18(i;j) ;  Earnhani  v.  Camden  I'te.  R.  Co..  ."),-)  Pa.  St.  .');{  (18(17). 
A  eonti-ary  view  is  said  to  be  taken  in  Vanderslie.'  v.  Tiie  .Superior,  !)  P;i. 
1,.  J.  IKi.  a  ease  uhieli  I  have  not  been  able  to  I'onsnlt. 

"8  8  Pa.  St.  471)  (1848). 

"7  Camden  ite.  R.  Co.  v.  Raldauf.  1(J  Pa.  St.  ti7  (18.-)1). 

The  lenniininfj  eases  in  this  ^tato  on  the  subjects  here  treated  of  are: 
Delaware  Ae. 'I'ow  Boat  Co.  v.  Starrs,  (il*  J'a.  St.  :?()  (1871):  Baltimore 
iX:e.  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Brown.  .")4  Pa.  St.  77  (18(J7) :  Hand  v.  Baynes,  4 
Wliart.  -204  (18:{8) ;  Forbes  v.  Dallett,  !)  Phila.  .M.")  (1872) :  Clyde  v.  Gra- 
ver, .")4  Pa.  St.  2,')1  (18(J7) :  <  'oxe  v.  lleisley,  11)  Pa.  St.  24;$  (18.V2) ;  Hays  v. 
Kennedy.  41   Pa.  St.  1178  (18IJ1) :  Hays  v.  Millar,  77  Pa.  St.  238  (1874) : 


■'m^iammm.- 


r! 


54 


Tlir.  ( ONTKACTS  OF  C'AUHIKKS. 


[CH.    II. 


§  (!0.  liliodr  Ishnt'l. — 111  Kliodc  Island  (he  (iiu'stions  dis- 
cussed in  tliis  c'liaiUcr  liavc  not  iiriscii  For  dclcrniiiialion  by 
the  courts.'''^ 

§  (!1.  South  ('(irn/iim. — A  conimon  caiTicc  may  limit  liis 
liahiiitv  l>v  cxi'ivss  couli-act,"'' and  also,  it  would  schmu,  Ity 
notice.'-'"     But  in  n.'itlici'  case  for  iu'ii-li_ii,-ciicc.'-'' 

§  ()2.  Ti'iDK'KM'c. — A  carrier  may  restrict  his  coinnion  hr.v 
liability  by  contract  except  for  neii-liuciicc.'-'-'  Hut  not  by 
a  ireneral  notice.'-'' 


Brown  V.  CimMlrii  .vc.  li.  Co..  8;t  I*;i.  SI.  liiC  (1877)  ;  Sliciilv  v.  I'iiiladrl- 
pliiii  I'ropolicr  Co..  (il)  l':i.  .St.  !()!»  (1>S(;!();  Wolf  v.  Western  riiioii  Tele- 
f^raj)!!  Co..  02  I'a.  St.  Sli  (ISd!)):  i 'aiiuieii  i^^ie.  R.  Co.  v.  Fot'svtli,  (11  I';i. 
Ht.  HI  (ISC.ii):  Hell  V.  Keed.  I  Hiiuiey.  \T,  (ISIO) :  Hart  v.  Allen.  2 
Watts.114  (ls;5;i):  Xewlmrirer  v.  7-:xpress  Co..(l  I'liila.  17t  (IStit;);  Cliou- 
tcawx  V.  Leech.  IS  Pa.  SI.  -lH  (IS.VJ);  Wliltesides  v.  iJiissell.  S  U'.  A  S. 
41  (1S14) ;  Weir  v.  Kxpn  ss  Co..  ."»  IMiila.  \Mm  (l.S(U) ;  llarriiiu-ton  v.  Me- 
Shaiie.  2  Watts.  4 1;{  (ls:M):  Morrison  v.  Davis.  -JO  I'a.  St.  171  (1S.V_'); 
Gales  V.  llailnian.  11  I'a.  St.  r)15  (lS4il) :  Warden  v.  (In-vv.  (i  Watts.  424 
(1837):  Colton  v.  Cleveland  i^ie.  K.  Co..  (17  Ta.  St.  211  (1870);  Ilnni- 
I)hreys  v.  I{eed.  (J  Wliarl.  i:!.")  (1811);  Patterson  v.  Clyde.  (J7  Pa.  St.  TiOO 
(1871). 

"»  lluhhurd  V.  liarnden  Express  Co.,  10  U.  f.  244  (1872),  is  the  oidy 
Khode  [sland  eas(>  anywhere  in  point. 

"'•'  Porter  v.  Southern  Kxpre:  s  Co..  4  S.  C.  K!.")  (1872) ;  Levy  v.  Sontli- 
ern  Express  Co..  4  S.  C.  I'-U  (1872) :  Swindler  v.  llilliard.  2  Uieh.  (S.  C.) 
2(11  (18,")(i):  Baker  V.  Brinson.  !)  I{ieh.  (S.  C.)  201  (18.")());  I'atton  v.  Ma- 
grath.  Diidl.  l.V.)  (18H,-::  Sin<;leton  v.  Hilliard,  1  Strobii.  20:!  (1847). 

'2"  Levy  V.  Sonttiern  Lxpress  Co..  4  S.  C.  2:J4  (1872);  Patlon  v.  Ma- 
grath.Dudl.  1")!)  (18:58). 

121  Swindler  v.  llilliard.  2  Uieh.  (S.  C.)  2U;  (184(;; ;  Parlver  v.  Hrinson. 
9  Rich.  (S.  O.)201  (lS.-)(i). 

The  otlier  eases  are  :  Ilainniond  v.  McClnre.  1  Hay.!)!)  (1700);  (iaither 
V.  Burnet.  2  Brt  v.  488  (1811);  Marsh  v.  Blytli.  1  N'.  &  Me.  170  (1818); 
Mar.sli  V.  Blyihe.  1  MeCord,  ac.O  (1821);  Cameron  v.  llieh,  4  Strolih.  ICs 
(18r)0),.s.  c.  .')  Itieh.  (S.  C.)  'AWl  (1852);  Stadheeker  v.  Coinhs.  !)  liieh. 
(S.  C.)  ]!W  \m\)  ;  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Bason.  Harj?.  202  (1824) ;  Reaves 
V.  Waterm„ii.  2  Sjjcers.  1!I7  (184:$). 

i"-!()lwell  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  1  Cent.  L.  .L  180  (1874);  Oraij;  v. 
Childress,  Peck.  270  (182:{);  Nushvillo  Ac.  R.  Co.  v.  JaeUson.  0  llcisk. 
27!  (1871) ;  Soiitlic  i  ICxpress  Co.  v.  Womaek,  1  Hoisk.  250  (1870)  ;  East, 
Tennessee  &e.  R.  Co.  v.  Xelson.  1  Cold.  272  (18()0). 

"iw  Walker  w  Skill  with,  Meiffs,  .-)02  (18:r). 

The  other  eases  are:  Memphis  &e.  R.Co.  v.  Jones,  2  Head.  .*)17  (IS.JO) : 
Gordon  v.  Bnehanan,  .■>  Yerg.  71  (18:5:5);  Turney  v.  Wilson,  7  Ycrg.  340 


Cll. 


...] 


I'OWKi;  TO  IJMIT  I,IAIWI,ITV. 


.')5 


§  (i;5.  Tc.i-ds. — By  :i  slMditcof  tliis  Slate  passed  in  18(i(), 
it  is  provided,  "that  railioad  (((mpaiiics  and  otiier  coiiiiiioii 
carriers  of  u'oods,  wares  and  niei'eiiandise  for  hire,  within 
this  Slate  on  hind  ei"  in  Itoats  or  vessels  on  tiie  water.s  ru- 
tirely  within  the  hody  of  this  State,  siiall  not  limit  or  re- 
strict tiieii'  liability,  as  it  exists  at  eoniinon  law,  by  any  {jjen- 
ei'al  or  special  notice,  nor  by  inserlinu:  exci'ptions  in  the 
bill  of  ladinir  or  niemoriinduin  liiven  npon  the  i"eceii»t  (»f  the 
noods  Cor  transportation,  nor  in  any  other  manner  whatever, 
and  no  special  aureement,  made  in  contravention  of  the 
forcii'oinu^  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  valid.'"'-'  A 
pi-evions  statute  which  this  repealed  was  directed  ajiainst 
notices  ireneral  or  aetnal,  but  permitted  a  special  ajrreeinent 
in  writinir  siirnetl  by  the  parties  or  their  airents.'-'' 

§  ()1.  \'cnii(iiit. —  The  liability  of  ihe  carrier  may  be  re- 
stricted by  contract  ;  but  not  by  u'eiieral  notice,  unless 
clearly   proved  to  have  been  assented  to  by  the   em|»loycr.'* 

§  (!;').  Vii'<iiiti(i. —  A  common  carrier  may  by  contract  re- 
strict his  common  law  liability,  except  for  negliirence,''^' 

§  (i(!.  WcKt  Vinitiiia. —  In  West  N'irjrinia  a  eonunon  ear- 
rier  may,  by  contract,  absolve  himself  from  all  liability  re- 
sulting from  any  and  every  v'euree  of  ncj^iliu-euce  short  of 
fraud,   provided    the  contract  is  clear  that  such   was  the  in- 


h 


'fff* 


I  is;?.")) :  Jdiics  V.  Walker,  n  Yt'r<;.  127  (1.^27) :  Jolinsoii  v.  Kriar.  4  Yer.ir. 
IS  (lH;i:$). 

'-"•  I'ascliiifs  Dijicst.  art.  ■Vi:<\. 

!-■■■  !•!..  Hole  \\1\). 

Sec  iM.wltT  V.  Davciiiiort.  '1\  Tex.  (>•>(;  (1S:)S);  Austin  v.  Tall*.  '20  'IVx. 
II! »  (1S.-.7);  Caiiln  v.  IJi'iindt.  :<!> 'IV-x.  Win  (1S7;!)- 

'•*'  Karnicrs  Ac.  Bank  v.  niaiiiiilaiuTrans.Co.,  18  Vt.  131  (18t(!),,s.c.,2'a 
Vt.  ISd  (IS51);  Maim  v.  IJircliaid.  10  Vt.  :?20  (18(17):  Hliiiiicnlhal  v. 
liraiiicnl.  ;18  Vt.  102  (IXiC);  irinihall  v.  KiitlaiKUcc  It.  ( 'o..  2(;  Vt.  247 
118.V1). 

The  other  Ci.scf*  arc:  Spencer  v.  I)a-j;.U'i'tl.  2  Vt.  !t2  (182!l):  King  v. 
\V<...(ll.ri(l;re.  :{|  Vt.  .')(•,:>  (18(11);  Maim  v.  Uirchanl.  40  Vt.  :{2(;  (18(57): 
Xcw.'il  v.  Smith.  40  Vt.  2.").")  (1877):  i'litts  v.  liraiiicnl,  42  Vt.  :>(>('.  (1870). 

'•-'  VVilsDii  V.  I'hesapealve  iV;c.  U.  Co..  21  (iralt.C.Vl  (1872):  Vir<,'itii:i  A:o. 
K.  ('(>.  V.  Sayers.2(;  iJratt.  ;;2S  (1S7.")). 

Se<-  also  Friend  v.  W(mmIs.  0  (iratt.  180  (1840). 


^ts 


1. 


m 


TIIK  CONTIIACTS  OK  C.MMMKKS. 


[(11.    II. 


14 


tfiition  of  (Iio  partii's  to  it.'-"* 

§  (57.  ir/N'Y)//,s'/// — Tlic   (jU(>stion   of  the   power  of  a   ciir- 
ricr  to  I'cstricl  his  liahility  hyuii  cxccptioM  in  a  hill  of  ladiiij;' 
or  Jiv  a  special   eoiitnict,  was  tirst  raised   in   this   Slate   in 
l.sr)().'-''     r>iit  the  Supreme  (^ourt  then  evaded  the  point,  as 
it  didai^ainin  LSli:^,'''' iind  aaain  in   ].S(!.").'"      In  liitornnni  >\ 
American    ExprcsM  (J(.i)ipnni/,^''-  decided  one  year    later,  it 
wart   held   thiU.  an   express   eoiii[)any   may  lawlully  limit    its 
li.'ihilitv  as  insurer  by  contract,  as  to  losses  arisini;'  thiouiili 
the  default  or  neirliji'ence  of  any  othei'  j)erson,   corporation 
or  association  to  whom  the  property  intrustiKl  to  it   shall   he 
delivered  by  the  company  for  the  performance  of  any  act  or 
dut,y  in  resj)eet  thereto,  at  any  point  or  place  off  the  estab- 
lished  routes  or  lines  of  tlu;  company,  and  may  free  itself 
from  liability  for  any  loss  or  damage   of  any  box   oi'  i)ack- 
ajjfe  for  ovei-  $.')(),  unless  the  just  and  true  value  is  statc'd  in 
the  receipt  ;  or  for  |)roperty  not  properly  packed,  oi"  frairib' 
fal)rics  not  so  marked  upon  the  packap',  or  fabrics  consist- 
in  <••  of  or  contained  in  glass,     "The  conditions  of  this  re- 
ceipt," said   the  court,   "do   not   involve   the   much   vexed 
(lue.stion  as  to  whether  a  common  carrier  can  protect  himstdf 
l»y  contract  from  liability  for  losses  o(  currinir  throuuh  his 
own  negligence  or  misconduct,  or  the  negligc>nce   or  mis- 
conduct of  his  own  agents  or  servants."      In  the  same  year 
a  contract  that  the  owner  of  lire  stoclc  would  assuiiic  all  risk 
of  damag*!    or    injury  fiom    whatever   <  ;uh(!  happening    in 
the    course  of  transportation    was    held   to   he    valid.     l>ut 
the  chief    justice   was  careful   to   add:   "  Wt?    intimate   no 
opin.ion  as  to  wlxither  it  is  or  is  not  competent   for   a  com- 
mon   carrier   to   mak(^  similar    stipulations   with   regard  to 
other  kinds  of  pr</perty,  or  so  as  to  pi-otect  him-elf  against 
loss  or  damage  arising  from  his  own   negligenci!  oi-   the  neg- 


'*  Biilliinon'  &c.  U.  (Jo.  v.   Hiitlilionc.  1    \V.  V:i.  s;  (1   •\^) 
&c.  U.  Co.  V.  SkiM'ls,  :i  W.  V:i.  .mi!  (ISllII). 
1^'  Till"  Snltiiiiii  V.  (;imi)inim,  ■"•  Wis.  t,")l. 
I'"  Kalvoy  v.  Xortlicru  'l"iiins|)ort;Uioii  ('d.,  1.")  Wis.  1-J!). 
'■■"  Detroit  Ac.  U.  t!o.  v.  Fanners  I{;nik.  20  Wis.  \±l. 
'*-'-21  Wis.  ir)2  (ISijii). 


n.iitiiiioif 


CH.   II.] 


I'OWKU  TO  LIMIT  LIAIULITY. 


57 


liircnco  or  omissions  of  his  iiirciits  or  scrvuiits.'''^'    This  (|ucs- 
tion,  thcroforo,  rcinaiiis  still  uii  open  one  in  tiiis  Stiili', 

'■'■>  Hctts  V.  Kaniifrt^  Lean  Ac   Co.,  21  Wis.  SO  (ISCO). 

Tilt' i>tli«'r  ciisi's  in  tliis  Stiitc  iiri' .  Sti'oliii  v.  I)ctri>il  i'v;c.  K.<Jt)..'Jl  Wis. 
.•),")4  (lS(i7);  IVct  V.  ('iiii'!i<r()  iVic.  U.  Co..  !'.»  Wis.  IIS  (ISO.-));  Walil  V. 
IIolt.-.M!  Wis.  70;{  (|S7(t);  Hi.oixt  v.  (.'liica-;.)  Siv.  li.  Co.,  27  Wis.  S] 
(1S70):  Class  v.  (Jolilsinitli.  'J  Wis.  |SS  (1S(JSj;  Jilcason  v.  Cooilrifli 
Trails.  Co.,  ;$2  Wis.  S.^i  (ls7:;j ;  Martin  v.  American  Kxim'ss  Co..  11)  Wis. 
;{;»!  (1s(m). 


58 


THE  CONTIUCTS  OF  CAKKIEIIS. 


[Cir.  III. 


'  t 
I 


CIIAPTER  III. 


i'OLICV  OF  ALLOWIXO  A  I/MITKl)  LrABILITY 


lo  [.iiiiit  tlu'ii   Liability  l)y 


l< 


I. 
II' 


GO. 
70. 
71. 
72. 


SECTION. 
68.    Tolicv  of  Allowinix  Cdininoii  Carrii'i 
Contnict. 
Eolation  of  Carrier  to  (^iistoiner. 
Views  of  the  .Tiidfies  — Tin'  American  Doetrine. 
Keniarksof  Garrow,  B.,  in  JJodenliani  v.  Bennett. 
._.     Striet  Views  of  Nishet,  .T..  in  Fish  v.  Chapman. 
7IJ    Opinion  of  AVorden  C.  .f.,  in  ^lichigan  Southern   Railroad  Coin- 

l)any  v.  lleaton. 
74.    Elaborate  Jndfjment  of  Mr.  .Instiee  Bradley  in  Railroad  Company 

V.  Loekwood. 
7.").     Similar  Views  PIxprcssed  by  Indivi<hial  .Indj;^es  in  Xew  York. 
7G.    Opinions  Favorinj;  the  Opposite  View. 

77.  Impressions  of  Welles.  .1..  in  Parsons  v.  Monteatli. 

78.  Views  of  Wrijiht.  .T..  in  Moore  v.  Kvans. 

70.    And  of  Woodruff.  J.,  in  Freneh  v.  Buffalo  I'cc.  Railroad  Company. 

80.  Opinion  of  Parker.  J.,  in  Dorr  v.  New  .Jersey  Steam  Navijjation 

Company. 

81.  Of  Gould,  .J.,  in  Wells  v.  Now  York  Central  Jtailroad  Company. 

82.  Of  Allen.  J.,  in  Smitli  v;  Now  York  Central  Jiailroad  Company. 
S.'5.    Of  Smith.  J.,  in  Perkins  v.  Now  York  Central  liailroad  Company. 
84.    And  of  Solden.  V.  J.,  in  the  same  ease. 

§  68.  Policy  of  Allowing  Common  Carriers  to  Limit 
their  Liahility  htj  Contract. — Wh(^ther  roininoii  carriers 
should  be  permitted  to  restrict  their  liabilities  by  ajrrcement 
is  a  qnestion  about  which  there  hits  beou  a  jj^reat  difference 
of  opinion.  We  have  seen  that  in  England  at  an  early  day 
such  contracts  were  spoken  of  as  beino;  against  public 
policy ;  that  about  the  close  of  the  hist  and  the  beginning 


ir.  III.] 


I'OLICY  OF  TllK  LAW. 


59 


of  tho  prt'sciit  ccntuiT,  the  iiiicient  rule  hcciimc  iimch  re- 
laxed, carrier.s  heiiijjj  allowed  to  dictate  the  terms  on  which 
they  would  receive  <i;ood.s  for  carriauc  ;  that  the  evil  effects 
of  this  rul(!  incurred  the  disfavor  sind  called  forth  the  pro- 
tests of  the  connnon  law  judj>es,  and  that  parliament  inter- 
fered, hrinirinj;  hack  the  boundaries  of  the  law  to  soniethinii; 
like  its  old  landmarks.  In  America  no  such  confusion  has 
arisen.  As  was  shown  in  tlu;  i)revious  cha[)ter,  the  doctrine 
in  this  country  while  allowin*:^  the  carrier  to  rid  himself 
of  the  liabilities  of  an  insurer,  will  not  permit  him  to 
escape  the  duties  of  a  bailee.  The  American  courts  have 
not  yet  l)een  compelled  to  enforce;  and  at  the  same  time  to 
himcnt  the  law,  l)ut  have,  with  but  one  excei)tion,  declared 
thai  a  common  carrier  shall  not  be  excused  for  a  hick  of 
that  care  and  diliirencc  wliich  the  law  denninds  of  him,  by  a 
contract  which  he  may  have  induced  his  custcmier  to  ap- 
l)rove. 

§  •)!>.  Rt'hjlion  of  Cari'icr  to  Customfr. — Tiiis  rule  has 
its  foundation  on  the  relation  which  the;  carrier  and  the 
liailor  hohl  to  each  other,  and  tlie  danger  of  fraud,  actual 
or  constructive.  "Hy  constructive  frauds  are  meant  such 
acts  or  contracts  as,  altlioujih  not  originating  in  any  actual 
evil  design  or  contrivance  to  perpetrate  a  positive  fraud  or 
injury  upon  other  j)ersons,  are  yet,  by  their  tendency  to 
deceive  or  mish-ad  other  persons,  or  to  violate  private  or 
public  contidence,  or  to  impair  or  injure  the  public  interests, 
deenuid  equally  repri'hensible  with  positive  fraud,  and  there- 
fore, are  prohibited  by  law,  as  within  the  same  reason  and 
mischief  as  acts  and  contracts  done  nialo  anhno/'^  The 
courts,  therefore,  have  been  called  upon  to  consider  whether 
by  reason  of  the  {)eculiar  position  which  a  common  carrier 
occupies  towards  the  public,  he  has  not  such  a  prcj)onderat- 
ing  advantage  as  should  place  his  employers  under  a  certain 
disability  as  to  their  contracts  made  with  him.  It  may  be 
said  that  commerce  flourishes  best  when  it  is  left  most  un- 
tranuncled;  but  it  may  also  be  ursred  that  it  is   not  to  the 


'  Story  Eq.  Jur.,  nee.  258. 


:'  '1 


<;(> 


TIIK  COXTUArTS  OF  CAUUIKKS. 


[(•II.  111. 


ifin 


■mti'iTst  of  coiimu'rcc  that  a  i-ominon  fa.rior  sliall  hv  able 
to  lay  an  (•nil)ariro  on  tratlo  at  any  tiinc,  hy  rcfusiiiir  to 
tiansport  iroods  unless  under  such  restrictions  of  liis  liahil- 
itvas  would  hinder  reasonable  men  from  <xivin,<r  him  ein- 
l)l()vment.  It  is  very  true  that  a  eominon  carrier  can  not 
compel  his  customer  !o  enter  into  a  contract  relicviiiir  him 
of  his  common  law  duties.  The  former  has  the  ri,uht  to 
insist  on  the  carriaire  of  the  uoods  under  the  ('omnum  law 
rules;  and  if  the  earrier  refuse  thus  to  receive  them,  he  is 
liable  to  an  action.  Hut  this  remetly,  In-sides  beini:  vexa- 
tious and  tedious,  is  one  that  may  have  to  be  applied  in 
everv  ease  whei'c  the  issue  is  made  between  the  carrier  and 
jin  em[)loyer ;  and  it  may  well  be  supposetl  that  in  this  kind 
of  a  contest  the  earrier,  in  the  lonjr  I'mu  would  be  aide  to 
•set  the  i)ublic  somewhat  at  deliance,  .-s  l)ut  few  persons 
would  l)e  disposed  to  follow  u})  a  litigation  which  would  be 
for  the  benetit  of  the  ])ul)lic,  but  which  must  be  prosecuted 
at  their  own  costs  and  inconvenienei'.  In  most  kinds  of 
business  a  salutary  influence  in  securinir  services  under  con- 
ditions that  are  not  oppressive,  is  brouirht  about  by  i)rivate 
competition.  But  in  the  ease  of  many  of  the  railroads  now 
doiuir  the  ii'reater  part  of  the  earrvinir  business  of  the 
country,  competition  can  hardly  be  said  to  exist ;  and  where 
it  would  seem  to  exist,  it  is  commonly  stitU'd  by  extensive 
combinations  between  rival  carriers.  In  the  infa'icy  of  the 
carrvin<>'  business  of  Enirhuid  it  was  Ihouixht  to  be  necessary 
to  presenile  rigid  rules  for  the  liability  of  common  carriers, 
lest  they  mi<rht  be  tempted  to  collude  with  robbers  who 
then  infested  tlie  country.  This  reason  for  these  rules  can 
not  fairly  be  said  ain'  longer  to  exist.  Hut  the  ojijioi't unity 
of  the  carrier  to  violate  his  duties  may  at  present  be  taken 
advantage  of  in  many  ways.  The  difHculty  of  fixing  him 
with  proof  of  intentional  injury  is  as  great  as  ever ;  and  the 
necessity  of  resorting  to  his  services,  and  the  importance  of 
a  proper  performance  of  his  functions,  have  been  immensely 
t'lihanced. 

§  70.    Views  of  (lie  Jud'jes — The  American  Doctrine. — 


(11.    MI.] 


I'OMCY  Ol'  TIIK  I. AW. 


HI 


As  the  ((uostiou  uiuliT  coiisidiTatioii  is  one  that  is  [x'rlinont 
not  only  to  any  iiKjuiry  as  to  what  the  law  ouijhl  to  he, 
which  is  fonijiii  to  the  oI)je('t  of  this  ti'ca'isc,  l)ut  also  di- 
rcctly  affects  the  constiiictioii  of  contracts  liniitinjr  the  lia- 
l)ilities  of  coiiiinoii  carriers — since  contracts  that  ai'e  favored 
in  law  and  coiitvucts  that  arc  odious  aro  intcM'pn^ted  lil)i'ra!ly 
or  strictly  as  the  case  may  l)e — we  (U'cni  it  |)roj)((r  to  <;i\(' 
the  views  of  the  jud;^cs  in  sui)})ort  of  the  American  tloc- 
tiine  HI  the  lan<ruav'e  usetl  hy  them  ;  and  to  follow  this  with 
the  arguments  of  the  New  Vork  judges  in  defense  of  the;  ex- 
ceptional ride  which  they  have  adoptiKl.- 

§  71.  lioiKirku  (if  (rarroir,  H.,  in  liotlciiliaiii  v.  licniwH. 
— "Kvcryhody  who  has  had  anythinir  to  do  with  carriers 
must  know  that  if  this  ease  had  received  a  contrary  deci- 
sion, they  would  have  no  security  whatever.  The  carri(M's 
would  have  said  :  '  Vou  n)ay  enter  into  !ny  lottery  of  a 
common  carrier  where  then!  ari'  a  hundriul  blanks  to  a 
prize — whore  it  is   a  hundred  to  one  if  your  parcel  arrives 


-' In  !i(l<lili(»n  to  till' views  ol  Ww  jn(ljj;t's  wliicli  are  given  in  tills  chap- 
ter, tlie  reiuliT  is  referred,  for  lack  of  spaee  to  set  tlieiii  out  in  full,  to 
the  opinions  of  Mr.  .Jnstiei?  Slrony  in  JJanli  of  Kenliieliy  v.  Adams  Ex- 
press Co..  !):}  I'.  S.  171.  1  Cent.  L.  J..  WTt  (l.STU) ;  of  t'arlve,  B.,  in  Carr  v. 
I>aneashiie  ^e.  \\.  Co..  7  Kxcli.  712.  7  liail-v.  Cas.  ^21!  (lS.-)2) ;  of  Sniilli. 
.1..  in  Welles  V.  New  York  < 'eiit.  JI.  Co..  2(5  Barb,  (j-li  (IS.W);  of  liolierl- 
son.  tJ..  in  Adams  lCxi)ress  Co.  v.  Noek,  2  Dnv.  (Ky.)  nijl  (l.S(i(!) ;  of 
Thalelier.  C  .]..  in  Mereliants  1  )ispateli  Co.  v.  Cornfortli. ;{  Col.  2S()  (]S77 ) ; 
of  Mr.  .Iiistice  Stroiif;  in  York  Co,  v.  Central  Railroad,;;  Wall.  107 
(18().')^ ;  of  Thompson.  .1..  in  Karnham  v.  Camden  Ac.,  11.  Co..  55  Pa.  St. 
.*.;{  (IS(;7);  of  Coekbnrn.  C.  .  ..  in  Phillips  v.  Clark.  2  C.  B..  X.  S..  AM 
(18.")7);  of  rosier.  J.,  in  Welch  v.  Boston  &.i'.  \i.  Co..  H  Conn.  :\X\ 
(1S74);  of  I':vans,  J.,  in  Swindler  v.  llilliard.  2  Bicli.  21(5  (I8-U5) ;  of 
Christian.  J.,  in  Virpnia,  Ac.  K.  Co.  v.  Savors,  2(5  (^ratt.  :?2S  (187.')):  of 
Wyly,  J.,  in  llifjginsv.  New  Orlearu-.  Ac.  K.  Co..  28  La.  Ann.  i;i;?  (187(5) ; 
of  Martin.  C.  J.,  in  Michigan  Cent.  P.  Co.  v.  Hale.  (5  Mich.  24:5  (IS,')!)) ;  of 
Gibson.  C.  J.,  in  Atwood  v.  Peliance  Co.  t)  AVatts.  87  (183!));  of  Paii- 
ney,  J.,  in  Graham  v.  Davis.  4  Ohio  St.  :{()2  (1854);  of  Bartley,  J.,  in 
Davidson  v.  Gr.iham.  2  Ohio  St.  1151  (18."):{) ;  of  Boasley,  C.  J.,  in  Kinney  v. 
Central  P.  Co.  ;52  N.  J.  (Law)  407  (18(58) ;  of  Perley,  J.,  in  Moses  v.  Bos- 
ton Ac.  P.  Co.,  24  X.  IL  71  (1851) ;  of  Berry.  J.,  in  Jackson  v.  St.  Panl 
Ac.  P.  Co.,  20  Minn.  125,  1  Cent.  L.  J.  1575  (1873);  of  Denio,  C.  J.,  in 
Bissell  V.  New  York  Cent.  P.  Co.,  25  X.  Y.  448  (1SG2). 


tv 


'   vr 


U   Hi 


(12 


THK  CONTUACrs  OK  CAKlJIKIiS. 


[(  !f.   Ill 


safe.'      Hill  this  case  will  tcacli  thcin  that   it  is  their  intei-cst 
to  ein[)l(»v  persons  capal)!*'  of  altciidiiis;  to  their  duty."  ^ 

§  72.  >S/n'c(  Vlcirs  of  Xishff,  ./..  in  Fis/i  r.  ('/idpiiinii. 
"'riie  carrier  is  recojiiii/ed  as  a  puhlic  au'eiit  ;  for  his  scr- 
vic(>.>;  he  is  entitled  to  ample  rewai'd,  and  is  not  hound  to 
perform  1  hem  unless  it  is  paid  or  tendered;  r.r  iicccss/fafr 
rci,  the  most  uncpialilied  eonlidenee  is  reposed  in  him  ;  this 
eonlidenee  is  indis|)eiisal)le  to  the  exercise  of  his  vocation. 
From  the  nature  of  his  eallinir,  the  utmost  facilities  are  at 
his  control  for  frautlulent  conduct  .and  collusive  comhina- 
tions;  and  for  the  same  reason  his  frauds  or  con!l)inations 
are  ditKcult  of  proof,  lli'  enters  into  this  line  of  husimvss 
voluntarily  and  with  a  knowledii'e  of  all  its  hazards,  for  he 
is  justly  presumed  to  know  the  laws  of  the  land,  'i'he  law, 
then,  lookiuiT  to  the  great  interests  of  commerce,  and 
guarding  with  parental  care  tin;  rights  of  the  greatest  num- 
ber, makes  him  an  insurer  of  the  property  delivered  to  him. 
With  what  resistless  force  does  not  this  reasoning  iipply  to 
the  ten  thousand  inciorporations  of  our  own  coiniti'v? 
Stronjr  in  associated  wealth ;  strong  in  the  mind  which 
is  usually  enlisted  in  their  management;  and  3'et  stronger, 
far  stronger,  in  the  large  iipmunities  and  extraordinary 
privileges  with  which  theii-  charters  invest  them.  If  these, 
as  carriers,  can  vary  their  liability  at  all,  at  what  limit  does 
the  power  stop?  where  are  its  boundaries?  Outside  o;  the 
obligations  which  their  charters  imp()S(>,  there  would  be 
neither  bounds  nor  limitations  ;  the  eiti/ens  would  be  at 
their  mercy,  bound  by  their  power  and  sultject   to  their  ca- 


"  4 


prices 

§  73.  Opinion  of  Wordcn  ('.  J.,  in  Mir/ii</on  Southern 
liailroad  ComjKiny  v.  Ilcaton. —  "A  conunon  carrier,  and 
cs})eeially  one  exercising  and  enjoying  corporate  franchises 
granted,  as  is  supposed,  for  a  public  puipose  and  for  the 
public  benetit,  can  not,  in  our  opinion,  be  permitted  to  so 
far  disregard  the  duty  which  he  or  it  owes  to  the  public,  as 

"Bodenhiun  v.  Bonnctt, -t  Price,  M  (1S17). 
< Fishy.  Cliiipman,  2  Gii.  34i)  (1S47). 


(11.  m.J 


roi.irv  OK  TIIK  I.AW. 


ttS 


lo  slipulatc  for  any  (Icjjrrci'  of  iu';/liLr»'iico  in  the  «lisclmr;ir('  of 
<liity  as  snch  comnion  carrier.  It  is  not  simply  a  ([ucstion 
Ix'twccn  tiic  carrier  an<l  the  sinirle  individnal  willi  wiioni  the 
conti'act  is  ina(l<'.  It  is  a  (|Ucstion  of  j)ul)lic  inlci-est  on  the 
(»ne  liand  and  public  duty  (»n  the  oilier.  If  such  contract 
can  he  made  and  is  to  he  held  valiil  in  one  instance,  it  fol- 
lows that  if  made  in  all  cases  it  must  l»e  held  valid  in  all 
cases.  The  carrier  may  thus  force  these  terms  upon  the 
shipper,  who  must  <'illier  accept  them  or  forcj^o  the  trans- 
p(»rtalion  of  his  jioods  hy  means  of  the  common  carrier,  or 
resort  to  his  action  airainst  the  carrier  for  refusinj;  to  trans- 
port his  "ioods  without  such  stipulations,  which  practically 
would  !»<'  an  iiiade(piate  remedy,  rather  than  resort  to  which, 
the  shipper  would  jreiu'rally  sul)niit  to  the  carrier's  terms. 
Tiie  common  carrier  may  thus  divest  himself  of  that  char- 
acter, and  force  the  public  throu<ih  its  lunessities  to  intrust 
the  transportation  of  ^oods  to  carriers  irresponsible  for 
ne^fliijence."  '' 

§  Tf).  I'Jhihoratc  Juifiji/icnt  of  Mr.  flustirc  Bradlet/  in 
liiiih'oail  Coiiipauif  r.  Ijovkwoixl. —  The  opinion  of  Mr. 
.lustico  BiJADi.KY,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  in  liailroad  Com/xnit/  r.  J.ockwood,*^  has  shvd  u 
new  lustre  ujionlhat  distiniruished  tril)ur.al.  The  ablest  ar- 
gument on  the  sul)ject  under  discussion  that  the  Anierieaii 
reports  contain,  it  is  destined  to  fix  the  law  on  as  firm  a 
basis  as  was  the  law  of  liailments  liy  the  case  of  (Jotjr/.t  v. 
Bi'rnavd.  Ijke  Lord  Holt's  celebrated  judirment  it  will 
endure,  thouirh  unlike  Lord  Holt's  celebrated  judu'inent  it 
is  unanswerable'.  "  It  is  contended,"  says  Mr.  .lustice 
HiiADLF.Y  in  this  case,  "  that  thouuh  a  carrier  may  not  stip- 
ulate for  his  own  neirlijrence,  there  is  no  uood  r(>ason  why  he 
should  not  be  ))ermitte<l  to  stipulate  for  immunity  for  the 
nojrlifrencc  of  his  servants,  over  whose  actions  in  his  ab- 
sence he  can  exercise  no  control.  If  we  advert  for  a  mo- 
ment t«)    the  fundamental    jirineiiiles   on   which   the   law  of 


•'  Mi(hi<?iin  &o.  II.  Co.  v.  llvaton.  37  Iiid.  118  (1871). 
fi  17  Wall.  ;5r)7  (1874). 


^itl 


H4 


Tlir.  CONTKACTS  Ol"  CAltlMKIiS. 


[(•II.    II 


fdininoii  curriiTs  is  foimdtMl,  il  will  he  M-cn  tii:it  this  oltjcc- 
tioii  is  iiiiKlniissiltlf.  In  n-jriilaliiiir  (lie  piiMic  rsialdisliiiH'iil 
(»r  (■(iiiiinou  ciirrii'is,  tin-  ^n-cjit  olijcct  of  tiif  law  was  to  sv- 
cun-  tin"  utiiKtsl  ran-  and  (lili;r»'iitr  in  the  pcrforrnanci'  of 
tlu'ir  iMii)<»rtaiil  duties,  an  object  essential  to  the  welfare  of 
cverv  civili/ed  eoinnmnity.  Hence  the  coninuMi  law  rule 
which  chai'<red  thi'  c(»ininon  carrier  as  an  insurer.  Why 
cliai'ji'c  him  as  siieli?  IMainlv  for  the  purpose  of  raisin-; 
tlu'  most  strin^icnt  motive  for  t!ie  exercise  of  carefulne-s 
and  tidelity  in  his  trust.  In  rcL'ard  to  passeiiiiers  the  hi;rh- 
est  deirre.  of  carefulness  ami  dili,i;<'nce  is  cxpi'cssly  exacted. 
Ill  the  one  ( use  the  securinfT  of  the  most  exact  diliu'cnc*-  and 
lidclitv  underlies  the  law,  and  is  the  i'eas(»n  for  it  ;  in  tlu' 
other  it  is  dik'ectly  and  ahsoluti-ly  prescribed  by  the  law.  It- 
is  obvious,  therefore,  that  if  a  carrier  stipulate  not  to  be 
bound  to  tiie  exercise  of  care  and  dilijfcnce,  but  to  be  at 
liberty  to  induljre  in  the  contrary,  he  seeks  to  put  off  the 
I'XHOidaJ  (hides  of  his  employment,  and  to  asst-rt  that  he 
may  do  so  seems  almost  a  contradiction  in  tei'ins.  Now,  to 
what  avail  does  the  law  attach  these  essential  duties  to  the 
employment  of  the  common  carrier,  \\  they  may  be  waived 
in  respect  to  his  aijents  and  servants,  especi.ally  where  the 
carrier  is  an  artificial  beinjjT,  incapable  of  actiiii;  exi'cpt  by 
airents  and  sei-viints?  It  is  carefulness  and  <lili<:ouce  in  p»'r- 
forminjr  the  service  Avhieh  the  law  demands  ;  not  an  al)stract 
carefulness  and  dili<rence  in  proprietors  and  stockholders 
who  take  no  active  part  in  the  l)usiness.  To  admit  such  a 
distinction  in  the  law  of  common  carriei-s,  as  the  business  is 
now  carried  on,  would  be  subversive  to  the  vi'ry  ()l)ject  of 
the  law.  It  is  a  favorite  ar<rument  in  the  cases  which  favor 
the  extension  of  the  carrier's  rijrht  to  contract  for  ex- 
emption  from  liabHlty,  that  men  must  be  p(>nnitted  to  make 
their  own  a<rrceinei.!s,  and  that  it  is  no  concern  of  the 
public  on  what  terms  an  individual  chooses  to  have  his 
•roods  carrried.  Thus  in  Dorr  v.  Xew  ,fertn')/  Steam 
Xavigation  Company^'  the  court  sums  up  its  judgment 
'11  N.  Y.  48.-)  (18.-.4). 


(II.   III.]  lol.K  ^    n|-  Tin;  LAW,  i\[) 

thus:  ''I'd  smv  iIk'  iciiiics  have  iu)t  ii  ri;j:Iit  lo  iimk(^ 
llicir  (luti  ('(iiiU'iicI,  iiiiil  Id  limit  tiic  inciisc  extent  of 
tlicir  own  rrspcdivc  risks  mid  linMlitics,  in  ;i  niiitler  no  way 
afl"«'<'tiiiji'  (111  |iiil»i:r  iiiDijils  or  cDiilIictiii/j:  willi  tlic  |)iil)lic 
interests,  would,  ill  ni\  judL'inent ,  lie  an  ninvarrantable  re- 
stiieliDii  n|iDn  ti.ide  and  ennnneree,  and  a  iiiDst  jial|iai)le 
invasiDii  of  per-Diial  riirlit.'  Is  it  true  that  the  |»ulilie  in- 
terest is  not  ai'lieied  l»y  individual  cdntraets  of  the  kind 
rel'erreil  ti)?  Is  ii'it  the  whole  hiisiiiess  e(»niiiiiinit_V  alTeclcd 
hy  Imldiiiir  suili  e(inlraet>  valid?  H"  held  valid,  the  advuiit 
ap'(tu>  |i(i->Iti(iii  of  ihe  eonipaiiies  exereisin;,^  the  liusim-s.s  of 
eoninion  eanier>  is  such  that  i!  places  it  in  their  powor  to 
ehaniif  the  law  of  eoniinon  earriers  in  effeet,  hy  int rodurin^ 
new  rules  of  ohlipitiDii.  'The  carrier  and  his  customer  do 
not  stand  on  a  fnotiii;.';  of  e(|uality.  The  latt»'i'  is  only  oiu' 
individual  of  a  million,  lie  can  not  afford  to  hiuirU'  or 
stand  out  and  seek  redress  in  the  courts.  His  husiiKjws  will 
no  admit  such  ,,  course,  lie  prcd'ers,  rather,  to  accopt  liny 
hill  of  ladinir.  or  siiiii  any  paper  the  carrier  presents  ;  often, 
indeed,  without  knowi;i;i  what  the  one  or  the  other  contaiiiH. 
In  most  cases,  he  jias  no  alt«'rnativc  hut  to  <lo  this,  or 
al)and(Ui  his  luisiness.  In  the  present  case,  for  exaniplc,  tho 
frciirht  aireut  of  the  company  testitied  that  thou;ih  they 
ma(U'  forty  oi'  tifty  coiilr.acts  every  week  like  that  under 
considcratiim,  and  had  carried  on  the  hnsiness  for  ytiars,  no 
other  arraniremeiit  than  this  was  ever  imide  with  any  drover. 
And  the  reason  is  ohvious  enoufrh,  if  they  did  not  accept 
this,  they  must  pay  tariff  rates.  These  rates  were  7()  cents 
a  hundred  pounds  for  carryinL;'  from  Buffalo  to  Alhuiiy,  iiiul 
i-ach  horned  :mimal  was  rated  at  2(KK)  pounds,  making  a 
char<re  of  $11  for  every  animal  carried,  instead  of  the  usual 
char<re  of  $70  for  a  car  load  ;  beinj;  a  diffcreiuu^  of  three  to 
one.  Of  course  no  drover  could  afford  to  i)ay  sueh  tariff 
rates.  This  fact  is  adverted  to  for  the  purpose  of  illustrat- 
in<:'  how  completely  in  the  power  of  the  railroad  eoiupuiiies 
parties  are  ;  and  how  necessary  it  is  to  stand  firmly  by  those 
principles  of  law  by  which  the  public  interests  Jire  protected. 
6        *    . 


'.%i 


■k. 


'■4   ' 


■'ii  .-irffeJ^B^S^it:^  -' 


* 


p*r^ 


it.' 

IB? 


IIP* 

I'li! 


66 


TllK  CONTHACTS  OK  CAKIMKUS. 


[CII.   Ill, 


If  the  cuatoinor  hud  Jiiiy  real  froodom  of  choice  ;  if  he  had 
a  reasonable  Jiiid  practical  lo  alternative,  and  if  the  employ- 
ment of  the  carrier  wen;  not  a  public  one,  char<j,in<jj  him 
with  the  duty  of  ucconiniodatiiii;  the  jjublic  in  the  line  of 
his  employment ;  thc^n,  if  the  customer  chose  to  assume  the 
risk  of  negligence,  it  could  with  more  reason  be  said  to  be 
his  private  affair,  and  no  concern  of  the  public.  Hut  tlie 
condition  of  things  is  entinily  different,  and  especially  so 
under  the  modilied  arrangements  which  the  carrying  trade 
has  assumed.  The  business  is  mostly  concentrated  in  a  few 
powerful  corporations,  whose  position  in  tin;  body  politic 
enables  them  to  e<,ntrol  it.  They  do,  in  fact,  control  it,  and 
impose  such  conditions  upon  travel  and  transjjortalion  as 
they  see  fit,  which  the  pul)lic  is  comixilled  to  accept.  'I'hese 
circumstances  furnish  an  additional  argument,  if  any  were 
needed,  to  show  that  the  conditions  impos»;d  by  connnon 
carriers  ought  not  to  l)e  adverse,  to  say  the  least,  to  the;  dic- 
tates of  public  policy  and  mo'vdiiy.  The  status  and  rela- 
tive position  of  the  parties  render  any  sucli  conditions  void. 
Contracts  of  common  carriers,  like  those  of  i)ersons  occu- 
pying a  fiduciary  character  giving  them  a  position  in  which 
they  can  take  undue  advantages  of  the  ptu'sons  with  whom 
they  contract,  nmst  rest  upon  their  fairness  and  reasonable- 
ness. It  was  for  the  reason  that  the  limitations  of  liability 
first  introduced  by  connnon  carriers  into  (heir  notices  and 
bills  of  lading  wen;  just  and  reasonal)](s  that  tlie  courts  sus- 
tained them.  It  was  just  and  reasonable  that  they  siiould 
not  be  responsible  for  losses  ha))pening  l)y  slicer  accident  or 
dangers  of  navigation  that  no  human  skill  or  vigilanc<M-ouid 
guard  against:  it  was  just  and  reasonable  that  they  should 
not  be  chargeable  for  money  or  other  valuable  articles  liable 
to  be  stolen  or  damaged,  unless  ap))rised  of  their  character 
or  value  ;  it  was  just  and  reasonable  that  they  should  not  l»e 
responsible  for  articles  liable  to  rapid  decay,  or  for  live  ani- 
mals liable  to  get  unruly  from  fright  and  to  iiijui-e  them- 
selves in  that  state,  when  such  articles  oi-  live  animals  be- 
came injured  without  their  fault  or  negiigeiKte.     And  when 


CH.  III. 


I'OLICY  OF  THE  LAW. 


(?7 


jiny  of  these  just  and  reasonable  excuses  were  incoiiiorated 
into  notices  or  special  contracts  assented  to  by  their  custom- 
ers, the  law  might  well  give  efftct  to  them  without  the  vio- 
lation of  any  important  principle,  although  modifying  the 
strict  rules  of  responsibility  imposed  by  the  connnon  law. 
The  improved  state  of  society  and  the  better  administration 
•of  the    laws    had    diminished   the    opportunities    of    collu- 
.sion  and  bad  faith  on  the  part  of  the  cai'rier,  and  rendered 
less    imperative  the  a})i)Iit'ation    of  the  iron  rule,   that  he 
must  be  responsible  at  all  events.      Hence,  the  exemptions 
referred    to    were    deemed    reasonable   and    proper    to    be 
allowed.     But  the  proposition  to  allow  a  public  carrier  to 
al)andon    altogether  his  obligations  to  the   public,   and   to 
^stipulate    for  exemptions    that   are    unreasonable   and   im- 
proper, amounting  to  an  abdication  of  the  essential  duties 
of     his    employment,    would    never  have    been  entertained 
by  the  sages  of  the  law.     Ilence,  as  before  remarked,  we 
reirard  the  Enjjlish  statute,  called  the  Railwav  and  Canal 
TrafHc  Act,  passed  in  1854,  which  declared  void  all  notices 
and  conditions  made  by  common  carriers  exce[)t  such  as  the 
judge  at  the  trial  or  the  courts  should  hold  just  and  reas- 
onable, as  substantially  a  return  to  the  rules  of  the  com- 
mon law.    It  would  have  l>een  more  strictly  so,  perhaps,  had 
the  reasonableness  of  the  contract  been  referred  to  the  law 
instead  of  the  individual  judges.     The  decisions  made  for 
more  than  half  a  century  before  the  courts  commenced  the 
abnormal  course  which  led  to  the  necessity  of  that  statute, 
giving  effect  to  certain  classes  of  exemptions  stijjulated  for 
by  the  carrier,  may  be  regarded  as  authorities  on  the  ques- 
tion  as  to   what  exemptions  are  just  and  reasonable.     So 
the  decisions  of  our  own  courts  are  entitled  to  like  effect 
when    not    made   under   the   fallacious  notion   that   every 
special  contract  imposed  by  the  common  carrier  on  his  cus- 
tomers must  l)e  carried  into  effect,  for  the   simple  reason 
that  it  was  entered  into,  without  regard  to  the  charai-ter  of 
the  contract  and  the  relative  situation  of  the  parties.     Con- 
<'eding,  therefoi'c,  that  special  contracts  made  by  common  car- 


4 


m. 


68 


THE  CONTRACTS  Ol"  CAKKIKKS. 


[Cll.   IIT. 


hi 


viers  with  thoir  customers,  limiting  thoir  liiihility,  arc  good 
mid  viilid  so  far  asthov  are  just  and  rcasonahh^ ;  to  the  extent 
for  example,  of  excusing  them  for  all  losses  happening  hy 
accident  mthout  any  negligence  or  fraud  on  their  ])ai-1  ; 
when  thev  ask  to  go  still  further,  and  to  he  excused  for 
no<rli«r(.iic('  —  jui  cxcusc  SO  reiniiTnant  to  the  law  of  their 
foundation  and  to  the  puhlic  good  —  <^hev  have  no  longer 
anv  plea  of  justice  or  reason  to  support  such  a  stipulation, 
hut  the  contrary.  And  then,  the  inequality  of  the  parties  ; 
the  compulsion  under  which  the  customer  is  placed,  and  the 
ol)ligations  of  the  carrier  to  the  public,  operate  with  full 
force  to  divest  the  transaction  of  validity." 

§  75.  /Similar  Views  ExprexKed  h>j  imiividnol  Judr/ps  i)t 
yeir  York. — "The  fruits  of  this  rule,"  says  Davis,  ,I.,  in 
iSfinmnv.  New  York  Central  Hail  rood  (' ompa  ni/, '^  rvfcrrm^x 
to  the  rule  established  in  New  York  that  carriers  may  by 
contract  exempt  themselves  from  responsibility  for  acts  of. 
negligence,  "are  already  being  gathered  in  increasing  acci- 
dents, through  the  decreasing  care  and  vigilance  on  the  part 
of  these  coi^ponitions ;  and  they  will  continue  to  be  reaped 
until  a  just  sense  of  public  policy  shall  lead  to  legislative 
restriction  upon  the  power  to  make  this  kind  of  contracts." 
In  ii  dissenting  opinion  delivered  in  /Smith  v.  Xew  York 
(Jenlml  Railroad  Company,^  WuioiiT,  J.,  obsi>rved : 
"Whether  a  contract  shall  be  avoided  on  the  ground  of 
public  policy,  does  not  depend  upon  the  question  wheth- 
er it  is  beneficial  or  otherwise  to  the  contracting  j)ar- 
ties.  Their  personal  interests  have  nothing  to  do  with  it ; 
but  the  interests  of  the  public  are  alone  to  be  considered. 
The  State  is  interested  not  only  in  the  welfivre  but  in  the 
safety  of  its  citizens.  To  promote  these  ends  is  a  lending 
object  of  government.  Parties  are  left  to  make  whatever 
contract  they  please,  provided  no  legjil  or  moral  obligation 
iB  thereby  violated  or  any  public  interest  impaired  :  but 
when  the  effect  or  tendency  of  the  contract  is  to  impair 

«32X.  Y.  333  (18C5). 
"24  5?.  Y.  222  ami). 


CII.  III.] 


POLICY  OF  THE  LAW. 


69 


such  intort'st,  it  is  contrary  to  public  i)olicyiiud  void.  Con- 
tnu'ts  in  restraint  of  trade  are  void,  hocause  they  interfere 
with  the  welfare  and  convenience  of  the  State;  yet  the 
State  has  a  deeper  interest  in  proteetinj^  the  lives  of  its  cit- 
izens. It  has  manifested  this  interest  unmistakably  in  re- 
spect to  those  who  travel  by  railroads.  Her  jjolicy,  and  the 
uniform  jiolicy  of  the  law,  has  been,  in  regard  for  the 
safety  of  the  citizen  who  has  recourse  to  this  dangerous 
mode  of  travel,  upon  a  road  and  by  agencies  over  which  he 
has  no  control,  to  hold  the  carrier  to  the  exercise  of  the  ut- 
most foresight  even  as  to  p<)ssil)le  dangers,  and  the  utmost 
prudi'iicc  in  guarding  against  them.  This  policy  is  dictated 
both  by  a  desire  to  ])rotect  the  citizen,  and  l)ecause  the  pub- 
lic is  interested  in  his  safety.  Whether  a  carrier  to  whose 
exclusive  charge  the  safety  of  a  jjassenger  has  been  com- 
mitted, by  his  own  culpable!  negligence  and  misconduct 
shtdl  put  in  jeopardy  the  life  of  such  passenger,  is  a  ques- 
tion affecting  the  public  and  not  the  party  alone  who  is 
l)cing  carried.  It  is  said  that  the  passenger  should  be  left  to 
make  whatever  contract  he  })Ieases  ;  but,  in  my  judgment, 
the  public  having  an  interest  in  his  safety,  he  has  no  right  to 
absolve  a  railroad  comi)any,  to  whom  he  commits  his  per- 
son, from  the  discharge  of  those  duties  which  the  law  has 
enjoined  upon  it  in  rcgJird  for  the  safety  of  men.  Can  a 
contract,  then,  which  allows  the  carrier  to  omit  all  caution 
or  vigilance,  and  is,  in  effect,  a  license  to  be  culpably  negli- 
gent to  the  extent  of  endangeiing  the  safety  of  the  pas- 
senger, be  sustained?  J  think  not.  Such  a  contract,  it 
seems  to  me,  manifestly  contlicts  with  the  settled  policy  of 
the  State  in  regard  to  railroad  carriage.  Its  eifect,  if  sus- 
tained, would  ol>viously  enable  the  carrier  to  avoid  the 
duties  which  the  law  enjoins  in  regard  to  the  safety  of  men, 
encourage  negligence  and  fraud,  and  take  away  the  motive 
of  self-interest  on  the  part  of  such  carrier,  which  is,  per- 
haps, the  only  one  adetjuate  to  secure  the  highest  degree  of 
caution  anil  vigilance.  A  contract  with  these  tendencies,  is, 
I  think,  contrary  to   public   policy,    even   when   no  fare  is 


IS."    1 


'^^Hr^SUHMMH^^  >  ^ 


-:_.y 


n 


70 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAUUIEKS. 


[ni.  III. 


;ili 


I 


paid."  In  a  dlsscntiiiir  ()i)ini()n  in  Wc/fs  ?•.  Xftr  York 
Central  Railvoad  Compani/,^'  Sl'TIIEKLAnd,  J.,  took  these 
o-rouncls :  "If  A  roquost  B  to  beat  iinother  and  ))roniisc  to 
save  him  hannles.s,  the  promise  is  void.  So  if  A  promise, 
in  consideration  of  tw-ity  shillinirs  paid  to  liini  l)y  H,  lie  will 
pay  li  forty  shillings,  if  he  does  not  heat  (J  S  out  of  such  a 
a  elose,  the  {jromise  is  void.  These  an^  eases  \nit  in  the 
hooks,  and  it  is  said  that  the  contracts  are  illeiial  as  confni 
honosmores.  It  can  also  he  said  that  such  contracts  are  void 
as  airainst  the  policy  of  the  law  puiiishintr  such  hreaches  of 
the  peace  as  misdemeanors.  If  A  offer  to  pay  V>  live  dol- 
lars to  promise  that  he  Avill  not  take  the  law  of  A  if  A 
strikes  him,  and  B  take  the  live  dollars  and  make  {lie 
promise,  and  thereupon  A  strikes  B,  no  one  would  su^^ijest 
that  B's  promise  was  valid  ;  but  would  it  not  be  proper  to 
say  that  the  promise  is  void  as  ajrainst  the  jiolicy  of  the 
law  punishiuir  the  battery  as  a  crime?  Certaiidy  any  con- 
tract Avhich  induces  or  tends  to  induce  or  encouraue  the  com- 
mission of  any  crime  can  properly  be  said  to  be  void,  as 
ajifainst  the  policy  of  law  declarinu'  and  punishiiiir  the 
crime.  After  the  actual  connuission  of  tin;  battery  B  could 
abandon  or  settle  his  claim  for  damages  as  he  saw  lit,  but 
l)efore  the  commission  of  the  »)ffense,  he  could  not  lawfully 
airroe  not  to  prosecute  for  such  dama<:;es  without  encourai>;- 
iiiir  a  public  wronjx.  In  advance  of  the  actual  conimissiou 
of  the  offense,  he  could  iu)t  by  contract  lay  aside  the  pro- 
tection of  the  law  for  his  j)rivate  and  individual  beuelit 
without  interferinir  with  public  interests  and  the  policy  of 
the  law  punishinir  the  battery  as  a  criuu',  and  therefore  tlu^ 
maxim  modm  et  ronvcntio  viiicnnf  Jorfcm  would  not  apply. 
*  *  *  Is  it  necessary  to  advert  to  any  other  law  or  con- 
sideration than  the  connnon  law  aiul  the  statutes  punisjiinir 
neirliirence  as  a  crime  to  show  that  i\w  protection  of  human 
life  from  nenfli.irence  is  a  matter  of  public  interest,  of  public 
polii'V?  And  is  it  not  i)lain  that  any  (-ontract  which  may 
induce  or  lead  or  tend  to  induce  or  lead  to  a  relaxation  of 
""24  N.  Y.  1«1  (1082). 


en.  111.] 


POLICY  OV  TIIK  LAW. 


71 


t!u'  carc^  ami  attciitioii  rctiuiivd  i)y  the  law  as  a  social  duty 
for  the  protection  of  huinaii  life,  interferes  with  this  public 
policy  and  should  be  held  void  as  a<i;ainst  the  policy  of  the 
laws  declarinj":  it?  The  neLrliirence  which  caused  the  injury 
to  the  [)laintiFf,  niijiiit  have  caused  his  death  and  the 
death  of  many  oiliers.  If  the  plaintiff  had  paid  full 
fare  and  taken  the  risk  of  tiie  passMc-c  upon  himself, 
his  eontrart  would  have  been  void  for  want  of  considera- 
tion, the  defendants  iK'inu;  under  an  admitted  obligation  to 
carry  all  passenircrs  \vlio  jjiesent  themselves  on  offering  to 
pay  the  usual  fare;  but  if  tlu'  contnc't  which  the  [)laintiff 
'lid  make  is  held  valid,  what  is  to  i)revent  the  defendants  or 
any  other  raib'oad  corporation  [juiting  the  fare  up  nominally 
to  the  h'pil  limit,  and  making  a  i»argain  with  all  their  psis- 
senjrers  who  will  consent  to  enter  into  sut'h  an  arrangement 
to  reduce  their  fare  onc-eiglith  or  one-sixteenth  of  a  {!ent 
pel'  mile,  in  consideration  of  their  taking  U[)on  themselves 
the  risk  of  the  passage.  Tlie  railroad  cori)oration  might 
thus  make  money  by  depriving  the  public  of  the  protection 
affoi'dcd  \)y  llicir  Ic'ral  liabilitv  in  damages  for  negliu'cnce. 
If  the  undertaking  of  the  defendants  to  carry  the  plaintiff 
free,  or  witlnMU  the  payment  of  any  money,  was  a  suHicient 
consideration  for  the  phsintiff's  contract  to  take  the  I'isk  of 
the  passage  upon  himself,  then  a  reduction  of  his  fare,  how- 
evv-r  small,  would  have  been  a  suliici«'nt  considcraticm  for 
sueii  eoiUraci,  li  certainly  can  n(»t  l)e  necessary  to  show 
that  liability  in  damages  for  a  want  of  care  promotes 
cai'e,  and  that  an  extinetion  of  such  liai)ility  would  tend  to 
promote  negligence.  Wi'  certainly  haxc  a  right  to  assume 
t!i:it  railroad  corporations,  like  individuals,  nw  influenced  by 
mniives  of  self-iiUerest .  *  *  *  Hut  we  have,  so  far, 
taken  only  a  very  limited  view  of  the  (|ueslion  of  public 
iJoTu'V.  All  laws  punishing  crimes  iigainst  the  person  and 
against  the  public  health  show  that  the  life  and  health  of  a 
citizen  is  a  matter  of  public  interest,  of  the  greatest  public 
consideration,  'i'ha'  its  citizens  constitute  the  strength  and 
wealth^)f    a   State   is  an   elementary   [)rinciple  of    [)olitical 


il 


J 


Si 


%       M 


72 


THE  CdNTnACT  OF  cAnnrKus. 


[en.  iu. 


ocononi}'.  Tt  cortainly  fim  not  he  siiid  that  a  man  has  r'nhrv 
a  moral  or  \cffi\  riu-ht  to  siwculatc  with  his  own  lif(; ;  oi-  to 
ma  1(0  any  conti-act  tcMulinu-  to  rcniovo  tlu!  saf(\unar(ls  which 
tho  hiw  phu'cs  around  it.  It  is  plain  to  mo  from  th(^  aliovo 
o-enoral  oonsidci-ations  that  th.o  oxiraoi-dinary  lial)ility  of  tho 
dofondants  in  damap's  foi-  nojiliu'cnoo  as  carrioi's  of  pas^^-ii- 
i^ors  was  not  dc'larod  hy  law,  nor  is  it  onforc(>d  by  law,  foi- 
tho  IxMiolit  only  of  tho  ])arty  injiii'od  in  any  ])art'rular  case  ; 
])ut  it  was  declared  and  is  (Miforcod  for  Iho  honolit  of  tho 
pid)lic  also  ;  and  thoroforo  a  ptissongrr  can  not  hy  con.- 
tniot  in  advance  of  tlu^  injury  lay  aside  oven  his  individn.al 
bonoHr  from  t!io  law  or  rule  of  liahility.  Tho  maxim  (/k///- 
hfi  /infest  r('iin)i'-!iivt'  jnri  ;/ro  w  infrodiicfn.  docs  not  apply 
in  .siK'h  a  case.  Pnhlic  consiilei-ations  and  the  polity  of  tho 
rulo  or  !ial)ility  ilseif,  forhid  lliai  it  sliould,"' 

§  7').  ()j))ii('itis  Ftiruriiuj  Ihi'  OpixfsKi-  Villi'.  —  ();)  the 
otiior  hand  opinions  ha\  e  Itcon  e\])rossc!l.  always  hv  the 
courts  of  Nov,'  ^'oi'k.  however,  favoi'lnj;'  tho  ox'.nij)'.  !.»n  of 
tho  carrier  hy  contj-act  from  all  r(->j;onsiliil!|y  whal(>\er. 
The\'  are  i>'iven  in  tho  romainin;/  -eel ions  of  ilii-^  chaplo;-,  a:> 
containinir  all  the  arii'unionts  wliiih  tiiis  op];v>'<-;ve  doi  ti'i;io 
can  present. 

§  77.  I)iiprrssi/i)is  of  llWA'.s',  ./. ,  ///  /'fir.-'i.-ns  v.  Mtni/'-'if/i . 
— "  If  I  have  li'oods  to  transooi'l .  and  tlie  common  carrici' 
tolls  mo  ho  will  carry  iliem  for  a  pjirtlcnlar  p.i'ice,  without  in- 
cui'rinir  the  risk  of  loss  or  damap'  ])y  incvitidilo  accident ,  l;ut 
that  if  h(>  takes  such  ri>l-:s.  he  must  a'id  :■  per  ct  iitap'  to  the 
]irico  of  trrnsporraiion,  I  I'eally  can  not  s,'e  what  the  puldic 
have  to  do  with  our  neu'otiatiops,  nor  why  we  .-hould  not  he 
l)orinittod  to  make  a  valid  coiiti'a''i .  with  su.'li  conditions 
and  stipnhitions  as  wo  choose." 

§  7S.  ]">'i'irs  of  \Vr/;//)f, '/.,  ill  MuDi'c  r.  Eraiis. —  '•  \  am 
unaiile  to  a])prociato  those  ovorwhehninu'  coi!siderations  of 
l)ul)lic  policA'  which  doma.nd  that  hocaU'^o  an  individual  is 
usually  ongag'od  in  tho  (Mnploymcr.t  of  a  carrioi-,  ho  should 
hiivo  the  common  law  liabilities  fixed   on   him.   in   all  cases, 

"  I'jirsoiis  V.  MoiitiMUh.  i:!  I5;nl).  ;;.V,;    is.*)]). 


CH.  HI.] 


I'OLKY  OK  THK  LAW. 


73 


even  thcHiirli  tlio  owiicr  of  the  frood.s  Ix;  Avi!liii<^  to  contriit't 
specially  with  liiiii  as  u  jiriviite  person."  '-' 

§  7S>.  A7u/  (if  Woodrvf,  J.,  in  Frenc/i  v.  Buffalo  tt*r. 
liailroad  Coiiipati//. — "  A  party  may  certainly  consent  to 
place  the  instruments  and  airencies  which  he  is  employini;"  in 
his  business  at  the  service  pro  hue  vice  of  another,  mider- 
takiniT  to  set  them  in  motion  under  the  scheme  or  i)lan  of 
nnmatrement  which  he  has  estahlishetl,  and  say:  '  You  shall 
have  the  benciif  of  my  enteri)ri.se,  my  machinery,  my  ser- 
vants, my  rules,  my  regulations  and  scheme  of  administra- 
tion ;  Itut  I  propose  that  you  shall  take  the  hazr.rds  of 
evervtliinir  but  my  own  fraud  or  uross  ;iej>li^ence,  and  re- 
jrard  me  in  no  rcspivt  insurintr  or  Lruaranteeing  the  lidelity 
or  the  pi'udciice,  diliirence  oi'  care  of  those  servants,  whom 
I  have  no  I'casoii  ti'  iisti'ust.  i)Ut  who  may,  out  of  my  ])ei- 
sonal  pn'sencc,  n.  ■■ct  tlicir  duty  or  prove;  otherwise  un- 
faithftil.'  'i'lirre  is  no  sound  reas()n  for  ilenyii'tr  that  if  a 
contract  is  r.iinlc  on  those  terms,  iuid  presumptively  for  a 
much  less  compensation  to  be  ])aid,  it  shall  not  bind  the 
parties.  It  may  safely  be  assumed  that,  in  this  country  at 
least,  men  of  busine>s  :ire  shrewd  enoutih  to  take  (arc  of 
their  own  interests,  and  that  if  a  jjarty  consoits  to  sr.cl)  a 
barirain,  it  is  because  it  is  for  his  interest  to  do  so;  he  ex- 
pects 1o  make  or  save  money  by  relievin.;  the  other  party 
from  risks  which  he  is  willinu'  to  assume,  and  in  general  his 
ex}iectation  is  realized.  Th.cre  is  neither  honesty  nor  j)oli<'y 
in  permitting  him,  when  a  loss  liap[)ens  through  one  of  the 
risks  he  consentetl  to  beai",  to  denv  the  bindini;  force  of  his 
contract.  This  is  now  the  practical  vieAV  of  the  subject 
which  is  recognized  as  law."  '' 

§  <S().  ()pini())i  of  Parker,  J.,  in  Dorr  v.  y^ew  Jersei/ 
tSfeam  ^faviijation  Vompantj. — "Upon  prin<ii)le  it  seems  to 
me  no  good  reason  can  be  assigned  why  the  parties  n.iay  not 
make  such  a  contract  as  they  please.  It  is  not  a  matter  af- 
fecting the  public  interests.     No  one  but  the  ])arties  can  be 

"  Moore  V.  Ev.iiis.  It  Barb.  .V24  (18.V2). 

'3  Fn'iu'h  V.  Buffalo  iSic.  K.  Co..  4  Keyos,  lOS  (IS(js). 


?U.i 


M-'TmWWT-s 


•i;i 


74 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAIfUIKliS. 


[rii.  in. 


i± 


the  loscrti,  and  it  is  (inly  dccidinj;  by  agi't'cMucnt  whicli  sliail 
take  the  risk  of  the  h)ss.     Tiic  hnv,  w  here  there  is  no  special 
ai'ceptiince,  imposes  the  risk  upon  the  carrier.      If  the  own- 
er chooses  to  relieve  him  and  assume  the  risk  himself,  who 
else  has  a  ri^ht  to  complain?     It  is  supposed  that  the  extent 
of  the  risk  will  he  measured  hy  the  auiount  of  the  eonipen- 
sation,  and  the  latter,  it  will  not  he  denied,  may  be  regulat- 
ed 1)^'  agreement.     The  right  to  agrees  upon  the  compensa- 
tion, cannot,  without  f;reat  inconsistency,  be  sejjarated  fi'om 
the    right   to    define   and    limit  the   risk.      Parties  to   such 
contracts  are  abund  mtly  competent  to   contract    for  tluMU- 
selves.     They  are  among  the  most  shrewd  and  intelligent 
men  in  the  community,  and  have  no  need  of  ii  special  guard- 
ianship for  their  protection.      It  is  enough  that  the  law  de- 
clares the  liability  where  the  parties  have  said  nothing  on 
the  subject.     But  if  the  parties  will  be  better  satisfied  to  deal 
on  different  terms,  they  ought  not  to  be  prevented  from  do- 
ing so.     It  is  true  a  comuion  cari'ier  e.\i>rcises  a  quasi  public 
employment,  and  hiis  public  duties  to  perform  ;  that  he  can 
not  reject  a  customer  at  pleasure,  or  charge  any  i)rice  that 
he   chooses  to   demand  ;    and  that   if    he  refuses  to   carry 
goods  according  to  the  course  of  his  cniiiloyment,  without 
a  sulficient  excuse,  he  will  be  lialile  to  an  action:  and  that 
he  can  only  demand  a  reasonable  compensation  for  his  risk 
and  services;  and  that  an  action  will  lie  against  him  upon  a 
tort  arising  ex  dcJicfn  for  a  breach  of  duty.     In  such  case, 
there  being  no  special  contract,  the  i)arties  are  supposcnl  to 
have  acted  with  a  full   knowledge  of  ihcir  legal  rights  and 
liabilities,  and  there   may  be,  perhaps,  good   reason   for  the 
stringent  rule  of   law  which  makes  the  carrier  an    insurer 
against  all  except  the  act  of   (lod  and  tlu^  public  enemy. 
But   when  a  special   contract    is    made    their   relations    are 
changed,  and  the  carrier  becomes,  as  to  that  tninsaction.  an 
ordinary  bailc    and  private  carrier  for  hire.     This   neither 
changes  nor  interferes  with  any  established  rule  of  law;  it 
only  makes  a  case  to  be  governed  by  a  diff(>r(!nt  rule.     To 
say  the  parties  have  not  a  right  to  make,  their  own  contract. 


c'lr.  MI.] 


roi.K'Y  OF  TIIK  I-AW. 


75 


jiiul  to  limit  the  precise.'  extent  of  their  own  respective  risk.-* 
mul  liahilities,  in  a  iniitter  no  wiiy  affeetinix  tiie  puhlie  morals 
or  eontlii  tin^  with  thi;  pnl»Iic  interest,  would,  in  my  judi;- 
iniMit,  he  an  unwarrantiihle  restriction  upon  trade  and  com- 
nu'rce,  and  a  most  palpaMe  invasion  of  personal  ri<i,ht."" 

§  81.  Vu'irsof  Gould,  J.,  in  ]V>'ffs  r.  Xi'ii^  Ynvk  Ven- 
tral Jiaifnxid  Compani/. — "Whether  founded  on  j)ul)lic  pol- 
icy or  otherwise,  there  seems  to  he  nothini;  illeiral  in  such 
a  contract.  It  cannot  reasonal)ly  Ix;  said  that  hecause  Hve 
()!•  ten  persons  on  a  train  tiiat  cai'i'ies  two  hundred  have  such 
[)asses,  there  is  the  less  inducement  to  care  on  the  part  of 
the  company  or  its  air^nts  ;  or  that  a  feelinjjj  of  indifference 
to  human  life  would  he  therehy  caused.  The  (juantiivi  of 
interest,  the  ratio  of  motive,  is  too  utterly  insii:;niticant 
when  compannl  with  the;  vast  liahility  not  protected  by  any 
contract  and  bindini;  the  company  and  its  a<;ents  to  every 
measure  of  caution.  That  ai^ents  will  b»>  careless  ;  that  no 
considerations  are  sutKcient  to  indue(>  constant  vi<>ihincc,  wo 
have  freipient  and  terril)le  proofs.  But  the  holdinji"  of  such 
contracts  illepil  would  not  (!ven  tend  to  alter  the  fact."''' 

§  «2.  ()/  Allen,  J.,  in  Smith  v.  Xew  York  Central 
Railroad  (,'otupani/. — "The  common  law,  from  motives  of 
public  policy  and  for  the  protection  of  the  public,  has 
made  common  carriers  of  property  charireable  with  all 
damaiic  to    and    loss    of    property   in    their   possession    as 


P» 


'M)oiT  V.  New  .IcM-st'V  Stt'iim  \:iv.  Co..  11  \.  Y.  4S.')  (1X54). 

'•nVflls  V.  New  York  C.'iit.  I{.  Co..  -J  I  \.  Y.  IS]  (ISC.-J).  Tii.'  plaintiff, 
ii  imsscii;;*'!-  on  (Iffcndaiifs  roail.  was  iiijiircd  by  a  t'ollisioii  htMuccu  tlie 
train  in  wliidi  he  was  ridini;'  and  a  frcij^jht  train  wliicli  was  carelessly  left 
standing' on  the  irael;  in  the  nii;;lit  time.  lie  hid  paid  no  fai'o,  l)Ut  was 
heint;  eaiiied  on  a  free  tieliet.  on  whieli  was  prinltMl  the  followinu;  con- 
dition: "'riit^  person  aeceplin;^  this  free  ticket  assnines  all  risk  of  acci- 
dents, and  especially  a;;rees  tliat  the  eompany  shall  not  ho  liable  under 
any  ••ircuinstanees.  whether  of  nejrli(ren<M>  of  their  aj^ents  or  otherwise, 
foi  any  injiny  to  the  person,  or  for  any  loss  or  injnry  to  the  property  of 
the  passeni^er  nsin;^  this  ticket."  The  fonr  previous  eases  ji'lven  in  §§ 
77-S()  did  not  preseiit  tlie  (piestion  of  m  ijli^enee.  and  the  expressions  of 
the  jnd;;es  ill  those  eases  oidy  emhraee  the  restriction  of  the  earrit'r's 
liabilitv  as  an  insurer. 


K<? 


i 


76 


TIIK  CONTUACTS  OF  CAIIHIKIIH. 


[CH.   III. 


ciirricrs,  oxct'pt  only  wlio.v  sik-Ii  dainaj,'*'  or  loss  lias  tiiist'ii 
fforn  iiu'vitiihloacciclciit,  soinclimoscalli'd  Iho  "nrl  of  (iod" 
or  the  puhlic  cncniics.  Carriers  of  [x-rsons  have  for  similar 
reasons  Ixrn  sul)jirtcd  to  very  strin«r('nt  liability,  and  luv 
hfld  to  (he  liii-hcsl  dcirrcc  of  care  antl  skill,  and  nnide 
liable  for  the  sliirlilest  neglect.  Indeed,  so  «'xae(in,<r  is  the 
law,  althoujih  founded  on  the  wisest  of  reasons,  that  the 
eonse(|U(MU'es  of  the  lial)ili(ies  of  this  class  of  public  s'-r- 
vanls  are,  in  extrenm  cases,  almost  i)enal  in  their  nature. 
But  those  rules  are  established  and  take  the  j)lace  of  a 
special  contract,  not  for  the  benelit  of  the  public,  l>ut  for 
that  class  of  the  public  who  have  to  ilo  with  those  classes, 
and  for  the  pi-oteclion  of  those  who  may  suffer  by  neirlect 
of  (kit  V  on  their  part;  and  unless  there  is  some  exception 
which  is  to  o|)eratc  in  this  class  of  cases  which  docs  not 
affect  any  other  riizht  or  duty,  or  the  relations  of  parties  in 
other  situations,  the  individual  for  whose  benetit  the  liability 
exists  and  the  duly  is  imposed  may  waive  them  l»y  airrce- 
ment.  No  jjrinciple  is  Ixttcr  settled  than  that  a  party  to 
whom  any  benetit  is  secured  I)V  contrai-t,  by  statute,  or  even 
by  the  Constitution  may  waive  such  I)enelit,  and  the  pul>lic 
are  not  intcrestetl  in  protectinjr  him  or  benetittiuij;  him 
against  his  wishes.  The  ])ul)lic  have  no  interest  in  the  tpies- 
tion  which  of  the  two,  A  or  15,  siiall  take  the  risk  of  the 
seaworthiness  of  a  ship,  or  the  lilness  of  a  raihv.ay  carria_<i;e, 
or  the  care  and  faithfulness  of  a  third  person  employed  in 
the  performance  of  a  duty,  in  which  either  or  both  have  an 
interest,  althouu'h  by  certain  general  rules  the  law  has  de- 
clared that  in  the  al)sence  of  any  contract,  the  risk  shall  be 
upon  A  and  not  upon  H.  But  if  li  elects  to  relieve  A,  ami 
to  assunu!  his  risks  and  liabilities,  the  |)ublic  are  not  at  all 
concerned,  and  have  no  occasion  to  forl)id  such  contracts. 
If  the  contract  is  induced  by  fraud  or  duress  it  is  of  course 
void,  and  the  common  law  liabilities  of  the  parties  will  re- 
main unchansred.  The  oharacti-r  of  the  liabilitv  which  one 
contracting  party  assumes  in  relief  of  the  other  can  not 
affect  the  validity  of  the  contract,  it  being   wholly  ])ersonai 


en.  111.] 


I'OLICV  Ol-  TIIK  LAW. 


77 


to  the  parties.     If  oiui   is  uinvisc    cnou^jrh   delilKTatcly   to 
excuse    auotlior   from    lial)ilily    for    ;;ross    and    very    yross 
iK'irlecl,  tlicre  is  lu)  <roo(l   reason  wliy  lie  should  not  Ix-  per- 
mitted to  do  so,  I'ven  for  personal  nei^leet  of  that  cliaracter  ; 
that  is  then;  is  no  reason  why  the  contract injj^  P''ii'*y  shoiihl 
not  he  estopped  from  scltinj;  up  a   claim  against  his  cx)M'ess 
contract  not  to  do  so.      If  the  i)uMic  have  any  claim  aj^ainst 
the  ne<;lif;ent  party,  either  criminally   or   otherwise,  i(  will 
not  be  affected  by  the  contract,  and   if  the  contract  l>e  in 
violation  of  the  law,  or  for  the  commission   of  a  crinuMal 
offense,    neither  party   can  maintain  an   action   ai^ainst   the 
other  upon   it  or  in   respect   to  the  transactions  to  which  it 
relates.     Such  a  contract  will    not  be   construed — except  its 
terms    compel    such  construction  —  as  authorizin}i;  or  con- 
templatin<;  a  crime,  or  as  providinj]^  airainst  the  conse(|uences 
of  a  crime,  and  hence  would  not  ordinarily  be  held  t(>  <!m- 
braeo  acts  of  culpable   neglirri'nce  n-sultinu;  in  death   under 
<'ircumstances  that   would  constitute   manslaughter,  that  is, 
<'ulpahle    ne<rlip;ence  of  that  deffi'ee  in  the  principal  and  the 
eontniclin^  piirty.      Hut  the   reason   does  not  extend  to  or 
])rohibit  a  <'ontraet   shift ini^  the  pecuni.ary  liability  of  A  for 
the  acts  of  C  to  H,  althoajrh  such  acts  of  <)  miji^ht  be  such 
as  would  subject  him  to  punishment  for  inunslau<:!;lit<M\  for 
eausinj;  deatli   by  his  culi)able  ncJ;li^re^K^^  or  for  any  other 
offense.     A  man  shoidd  not  be  pei*niit.t«Hi  to  eontr.u^t  for 
impunity  from  his  own  enminal  aets,  but  there  is  no  reason 
why  he  may  not  contract  for  such  impunity  from  the  aets  of 
his  ajreutiS  f<'r  whom  and  for  whose  aets  he  is  only  i>e(!U- 
niarily  responsible  in  the  nature  of  a  t^iarantor.*® 

§  X^.  Opinion  of  /Smith,  ./.,  in  Perkins  v.  New  York 
Central  Railroad  Company. —  "  What  then,  did  these  par- 
ties  mean  by  this  contract?     The   j)art,ies  both  well   knew 


'«  Smitli  V.  New  York  Ojnt.  R.  <:<).,  24  V.  Y.  222  (1S«2).  In  th4>  hist 
two  sontcnoes  the  right  of  a  railroad  coini)iiny  or  other  cori»orati«>H  or 
any  person  to  limit  their  iiabilitj'  for  tlio  ^■ri'inintilly  iiegli^eHt  acts  of 
their  iijBfents  is  referred  to,  and  is  lurtlier  mni»taiiie<l  in  a  sH<'(?e«Njing 
portion  of  tlic  opinion,  whtcli  is  oiMitted  ht^re. 


78 


THK  rONTKACTS  OK  CAKUIKKS. 


[Cli.   III. 


r  ! 


Iliul  railroiui  iKridciits  wm'  of  fn'(|U('iit  (Hrurrciico  ;  thai 
riiilroiul  travel  was  sul»jc<l  coiislaiilly  to  perils  rcsultinjr 
fruiii  tlu'  carcli'ssiicss  and  ii<\«rlii:«'iifi'  of  ciiiriiM'ci's,  coihIuc- 
tors,  hafi-irajicincii,  liriikciiicii,  snitfliiiicn  and  otiicrs;  that 
trains  were  fr('t|iifiitly  thrown  off  tlic  track  or  came  in  col- 
lision, and  were  sultject  to  a  variety  of  accidents  and  casual- 
ties ajrainst  which  no  human  prndenc*'  or  skill  in  the  em- 
ployment of  aj^cnts  could  t-ntirely  ;ruard,  aiul  that  all  such 
accidents  involve,  unavoidal>ly,  more  or  less  loss  of  life  or 
limb,  or  hodily  injury,  and  other  disastrous  conse(|ucnces. 
With  perfect  knowleil<ri'  of  these  facts,  Mr.  I'erkins  asked 
for  and  accepted  the  free  pass  upon  the  express  condition 
that  he  should  assume  '  all  risk  of  accidents.'  •  •  • 
yuch  is  the  harjxain.  •  *  •  *  The  defendants,  in  view 
of  the  accidents,  attended  with  much  pecuniary  loss,  result- 
in<r  constantly  from  the  neirliircnce  of  some  of  their  ajrents, 
proposed  to  carry  Mr.  Perkins,  without  chaiire,  to  Albany, 
upon  condition  that  he  would  taki"  for  himself  the  risks  at- 
tending the  trip.  The  (piestion  between  the  parties  was  .sim- 
ply which  should  take  the  risk  of  such  accidents  a.s  might 
occur  in  conse(iuenc(>  o."  some  of  the  defendants'  many 
agents.  Without  an  agieement  exempting  and  absolving 
them  from  all  liability  in  respect  to  such  accitients,  and  the 
injuries  resulting  therefrom,  the  defendants  would  be  legally 
responsible  for  such  injuries.  Mr.  IVrkins  assumes  the  risk 
for  himself.  lie  becomes  his  own  insurer.  He  absolves 
the  defendants  in  advance  from  all  liability  for  any  injury 
to  his  person  from  such  negligence.  It  was  a  fair  insurable 
risk,  and  Perkins  agreed  to  assume  it  for  himself,"  " 

§  M.   Opinion  of  IScUlen,   (J.  ./.,  in  the  /Same    Case. — 
"It  is,  however,  suggested,  although  not  made  a  point  upon 

"  Perkins  v.  New  York  Central  U.  Co..  2t  X.  Y.  l!)(i  (lS(i2).  In  lliis 
ease  the  plaintiff's  Imsbanil  was  killed  while  ricUnfr  on  a  free  jiass.  wliieh 
contained  this  condition:  "The  i)erson  aceeijtinfr  this  free  ticket,  as- 
sumes all  risk  of  accidents,  and  expressly  agrees  tliat  the  coni))any  shall 
not  be  liable  luuler  any  eireunistances,  whether  of  ne;;lif;ence  by  tlieir 
agents  or  otlierwise.  for  any  injury  to  the  jierson  or  for  :iny  loss  or  in- 
jury to  the  property  of  tlie  passenger  using  this  ticket.*" 


ijlli 

lit' 


<;ii.  III. 


I'OLICY  OK  TIIK  LAW. 


7» 


tlu"  iirjruinoiit,  llml  <>ii  arcount   of  tlio  very  scmmous  coiisc- 
(lUcMccs  iiiul  ^Tciit    risk  to  lift'  wiiicli  attciuls  sicudcnts  upon 
riiilroiuls,  puldic    policy    f()rl)i(ls     I  hat     railroad     conipairK's 
should  III'  permitted  to  exempt  themselves  l»y  contract  from 
those    I'esponsihilities    for    the    safety   of  their   piisseiij^crs 
which  the  law  devolves  upon  them.     'I'his  positic-ii  calls  upon 
the  coui't   to  introduce  a  principle  entirely  new.      Jt    is  not 
pret«'niled    that  there    is    any   precedent    for   sucii    a    luh'. 
Passenirers  have  been  i-arried  I)V  stajre-coaches  for  centui'ics 
with(tnl    tlu'  application   of    any  such    restriction   u\)(>u  \hv 
natural  liirht  of  individuals  to  take  care  of  their  own  inter- 
ests, and  to  provide  for  their  own  security.     No  such  prin- 
ciple  has  ever   been  api)lied   to  trans|)ortation   by  vessels  or 
by  steaniltoats.      It  may  bo  said  that  travelin<;  by  railroad  is 
more   hazardous    than    by    other    modes.     Statistics   would 
weem  to  jirove  the  contraiy  ;  but  this  is  immaterial.  The  (|ues- 
tion    is  whether   the   principles   of  the  common  law   which 
have  always  permitted  men  to  manajre  their  own  affairs  and 
to  make  their  own  I'ontracts,  provided  they  involve  nothinj;' 
immoral  or  illejral,  are  to  be  atlhered  to.     Are  the  courts  to 
interpose  in  a  matter  of  mere  i)rivate  contract  for  the  pro- 
tection of  individuals  ajrainst  the  conseijuences  of  their  own 
improvidence?     It  may  be  ur<:;ed  that  such  contracts  of  ex- 
emption, if  permitted,  will  tend  to  a  relaxation  of  vigilance 
on  the  part  of  railroad  companies,  and  that  this  affects  the 
.secui'ity  of  large  numbers  of  persons,  and  is,  therefore,  a 
matter  of  public  interest.     But  we   have  no  i-eason   to  sup- 
j)()se  that  the  practice  ever  has   been  carried  to  such  an  ex- 
tent as  to  produce  any  appreciable  effect  in  this  way;  and 
there  is  little  danger  that  it  ever  will  be.     It  is  eontined  to 
the  comparatively  few  cases  in  which  persons  travel  gratuit- 
ously.     If,  however,  it  should  ever  prove  productive  of  evil 
conse(|uences,  which  I  do  not   apprehend,  it  would,  I  think, 
be  better  to  leave  the  I'cinedy  to  the  legislature  than  for  the 
courts  to  bi'oak   in  upon   the  settled  rules  of  law  in   respect 
to  the   right  of  individuals  to  bind  themselves  by  contract. 
To  establish  the  principle  contended  for  would  be  an  act  of 


. 


m^m 


"^  If 


80 


THE  (()NTHA(T8  OV  CAKIilKUS. 


[CH.    III. 


pure  judicial  legislation,  aiul  would,  in  my  judgnuMit,  bo  an 
unwaiTiintahlc  assumption  of  po\v(M'.  It  would  noi  ho  the 
more  application  of  a  ])riMcip!o  alrc.idy  (\stahlisliod  to  a  new 
class  of  cases  —  which  is  within  the  [iro\  ince  of  the  courts  — 
hut  the  i.itnttluction  of  a  now  principi(>  whicli  has  neither 
precedent  nor  analogy  to  support  it.  To  this  I  am 
opposed."'  ''* 


liii 


OH.  IV.] 


NOTICES  AND  THEIR  EFFECT. 


81 


CHAPTER  IV. 


NOTICES  LIMITING  LIABILITY  AND  THEIR  EFFECT. 


SECTION . 

85.  Xotiws — Their  Effect  in  Kiijrlaiitl. 

S().  Justice  (>(■  rermittiiij;  Notices  as  to  Viilite  :iik1  Cliivaolerof  Goods. 

S7.  <  'riticisin  on  this  Practice. 

88.  Notices  as  to  Cliaracter  and    Value    of  (Joods  —  Tiie  Rule    in 

America. 

80.  rnreasonahie  Charjies  not  Permitted. 

!)0.  Notices— AViien  Severable. 

01.  rontlictinu:  aiul  Ambi<;uous  Conditions. 

02.  Without  Notice  no  Duty  to  State  Value, 
o;?.  Nor  'A'i)crc  I'arrier  has  other  Information. 

04.  Notice  Not  Complied  With  no  llecovcry  at  All. 

0,").  Notice  may  l)e  Waived  by  Carrier. 

0(i.  Extent  of  Ncticc. 

07.  Modes  of  (Jiving  Notice  of  limited  Liability. 

08.  Advertisements, 

00.  Postiiiii  Notices — Placard^. 

100.  'I'lie  Tse  of  Receipts  Resorted  to  — Tiie  Euj;lish  "Carrier's  Act." 
Idl.  Notices  only  Proposals  for  Contracts. 

1()2  ;.ssent  from  Accci'ti'iJI  Pai)ers  Contaiuinj;-  Contract. 

10;?.  OthiM- Cases  Siiowiiiij  Assent  to  Terms  of  Notice. 

101.  Wliat  Not  Snlliciciit  Evidence  of  Assent. 

1().">.  Notices  Attached  to  Papers  Containinj;  Contract. 

lot).  Kailroad  and  Stean'boat  Tickets. 

107.  Bagfra<;e  Checks. 

lOS.  Manner  of  Printing  Notices. 

§  S,").   yof.ice>f — 'rheh-  Efert  in  Enr/hind. — In  181H,  BuR- 
ROUGH,  J.,  said:  "  The  doctrine  of  notieo  was  never  known 
until  the  ease  of    Forward  v.    Piltard,^   which  I    argued 
1  1  Term  Rep.  27. 


'^asmm 


82 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CARRIERS. 


[CH.  IV. 


^' 


luanv  years  ajro-"'"'  lli^  ^"'^'^^  referred  to  was  decided  in 
1785,  bv  Lord  Mansfiklo,  l)ut  the  report  fails  to  show  that 
'  anvthin<r  was  said  in  it  al>out  notice.  In  Bir/nnid  v.  Watcr- 
Jionse,^  decided  in  181 H,  it  was  lield  tliat  one  who  sent  a 
parcel  by  a  coach,  havinir  knowledjre  of  a  published  notice 
that  the  proprietors  would  not  be  responsible  for  packajres 
above  a  certain  value,  unless  i)aid  for  accordinir  to  their 
value,  would  be  bound  by  the  notice.  It  was  this  class  of 
notices  which  first  found  favor  with  the  courts,  and  which 
served  as  a  foundation  for  Lord  Ellk.vhohoich  on  which  to 
base  his  rulinjrs  in  Jfan'nr/  v.  Todd,^  and  Lrcwm  v.  J/o/f,^ 
that  carriers  could  by  notice  exclude  their  liability  alto- 
"•ether — a  judicial  decision  destinetl  to  render  the  law  of 
Eufland,  on  this  subject,  unjust  as  well  as  uncertain  for 
nearly  half  a  century. 

§  8(j.  Juiifice  of  l^evmittiiKj  Xotiven  as  to  Vcdue  and 
Character  of  Goods. — Notices  of  this  class  were  early  held 
valid,  and  properly  so.  The  liability  of  a  common  carrier 
beiniT  founded  on  his  rewai'd,"  he  is  entitled  to  give  notice 
that  he  will  not  be  answeral)le  for  valuable  j;oods,  unless  he 
is  informed  of  their  value."  He  has  a  riirht  to  claim  this  in 
order  that  he  mav  accommodate  his  charjies  to  the  value  of 


'-'  Smith  V.  Ilorne.  S  Taunt.  144. 

•'<  1  M.  &  S.  2.55. 

n  stark.  72  (ISl.")). 

•■'  1  Stark.  ISO  (181G). 

"  ■•  A  hailce  is  only  tdilijifd  to  keep  tlic  ;,"»h1>  ^^  illi  as  iihk'Ii  diii^ciii c 
ami  caiitiou  as  lie  woiilil  keep  liis  own;  l)iit  a  I'oiiniinii  carrier,  in  n's|)t'i't 
of  tho  premium  \w  is  to  receive,  inns  t lie  risk  of  tlieiii  and  must  make 
good  the  loss,  tlionj^li  it  liajipen  witliout  any  fault  in  liiin;  the  reward 
making  him  answerable  for  their  safe  delivery."  F.ord  Manslleld  in 
Gibbon  V.  Paynton,  4  Burr.  2298  (1700).  "His  warranty  and  insiiranc(^ 
is  in  respect  to  the  reward  he  is  to  rei'eive;  and  the  reward  ought  to  be 
proportionable  to  the  risk."  Ibid.  •'  'Tis  tlie  reward  that  makes  the  car- 
rier answerable."  Lord  Holt,  C.  J.,  in  Tyly  v.  Morrice,  Cartliew,  4S,"i 
(1090).  "The  true  principle  of  a  carrier's  being  answerabh'  is  tlie  re- 
ward."   Aston. .!..  in  Gibbon  v.  Paynton.  suprn. 

'*' There  seems  to  be  only  one  point  to  wiiich  legitimately  notices  of 
carriers  could  be  admitted,  viz. :  the  regulation  of  the  consideration  for 
risk.    Saving  always  the  jjower  of  making  an  express  contract,  the  effect 


(11.    IV.] 


XOTK'KS  AM)  THEII!   KPrKCT 


83 


tlio  iroods  comiuittcd  to  his  ctirc.  In  i\  vory  old  case," 
whore  the  })l!iiii(iff,  when  he  dclivci-cd  a  l)ox  roiitaiiiin^ 
iiioncv  an<l  troods,  told  tlic  carrier's  servant  thai  there  was 
ii  hook  and  t()l)ace()  in  it,  hut  said  iiothinir  al)out  the  money, 
it  was  ruled  that  he  should  recover,  as  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  eai'rii'r  to  make  a  si)eeial  acceptance.  In  J/o/sv"  r.  iSIiif\^ 
^^ir  MAirmnv  IIai.k,  said:  '•IF  tiie  master  would,  he 
miu'lil  have  nia<le  a  caution  for  himself,  whit'h  he  omitting 
and,  taking  in  the  goods  gcnei-ally,  he  shall  answer  for  what 
haijpens.  TIuM'e  was  a  case  (not  long  .^ince)  where  one 
hroughl  a  l)o\  to  a  carrier  in  which  there  was  a  great  sum  of 
money,  and  the  cai-rier  demanded  of  the  owner  what  was  in 
it.  He  answ(>red  that  it  was  tilled  witli  silks  and  such  like 
goods  of  »nean  value,  upon  which  the  carrier  took  it  and 
was  roI)!)ed.  And  resolved  that  he  was  liable.  But  if  the 
cai'rier  had  told  the  owikm-  tiiat  it  was  a  dangerous  time, 
and  if  there  was  monev  in  it  he  durst  not  take  char<re  of  it, 
and  the  owner  had  answered  as  Ix'fore,  this  matter  would 
have  i'xciJ-('d  the  carrier.""  Lord  Mansi'mmj)  in  Gihhoi  r. 
Pi(>/iif>>)i,*"  disagrees  with  these  two  cases  on  the  ground  of 
the  fraud  pj'acficed  on  the  bailee,  and  s|)eaks  with  appro\al 
of  7'y///  r.  M>in'r(\^^  where  a  hag  sealed  up  was  tlelivered  to 
the  carrier,  the  servant  of  the  latter  giving  a  receipt  for 
£200,  which  the  scndei-  stated  it  contained,  while  in  fact  it 
contained  £4."»0.  The  l,;jg  being  lost  ihei'ourt  was  of  f)p!! - 
ion  that  the  carrier  should  answer  for  nothing  above  £200, 
"  because  there  was  a  particular  imderiaking  by  the  car- 
rier for  the  carriage  of  £200  only  ;  and  his  ie\\aril  was  to 
extend  no  further  than  that  sum,  and  'tis  the  reward  that 
makes  the   carrier  answerable,  and  since  the   plaintiffs    h;id 


^'  Ji? 


??•-■ 


of  a  nuM-c  notice  ouitlit  justly  to  bo  rostricttHl  to  tliis  [joint,  as  to  wliich 
alone  it  is  conipotent  for  a  carrier  to  refuse  euiploynient."'  1  Bell's 
C'onniientarics.  p.  ;iS2.  This  langwafjie  is  apprtJved  in  Southern  Kxpress 
<-().  v.  N'e\vt)y.  :{i>  Ga.  (i:J.")  (1S07). 

"  Kenrif!;  v.  Kfisl''slo!i.  Aleyn.  ".);{. 

!•  Ventris.  liISS  (KJS.".). 

I"  t  Burr.  22:)S  (17(iO). 

II  Carthew.  IS.")  (l(i!)t)). 


84 


TIIK  CONTRACTS  OF  CAIilUEIlS. 


[en.  IV. 


II 


in 


taken  this  course  to  (Icfriuid  the  canicr  of  his  i(>\v;inl  ihcv 
had  therchv  i)iirr(!d  iheniselves  of  that  ivincdy  which  is 
founded  only  on  the  ri'ward."  In  GiJthoii  r.  /^ci/n/itii^' £H)0 
in  money  was  sent  hy  the  cai'ricr  hidden  in  hay  in  an  old 
mail  bag.  The  carrier  had  previously  given  notice  hy  ad- 
vertisement and  hand  l)ills  that  he  would  not  he  answerahlo 
for  money,  jewels  or  other  valuables  unless  he  had  notice  of 
them;  and  the  evid«>nce  cleaily  showed  that  the  i)laintiff 
knew  of  this  notice.''  It  w.is  held  that  the  sender  could  not 
recover.  Loid  MAXsriKi.i)  said:  "  The  party  undertaking 
ought  t(»  I)e  apprised  what  it  is  that  he  undertakes,  and  then 
h(^  will  or  at  least  may  take  proper  care.  Hut  he  ought  not 
to  be  answeral)le  where  he  is  deceived.  Here  he  was  de- 
ceived." 

IJafsDii  r.  Donovan,^*  decided  in  1S2(),  pr(>sents  a  some- 
what simdar  case,  and  likewise  a  dift'erence  of  ojjinion 
aniouir  the  judires.  The  defendants  havinu'  u'iven  notice 
that  they  would  not  I)e  answeral)le  for  parcels  of  value 
unless  entered  and  paid  for  accoi'dingly,  a  box  containing 
bills  and  bank  notes  to  the  amount  of  £4,072  was  delivered 
to  thciu  without  anything  l>cing  snid  about  its  contents. 
The  box  was  stolen  from  ilic  coach  in  which  it  wa-  licing 
transi)orted,  and  tlu'  owiu-r  brought  an  action  to  recovc!'  its 
value.  The  trial  judg(>  lei'l  ii  t(t  tlK>  jury  to  say  whether 
or  not  the  j)laintiffs  had  dealt  fairly  with  the  (h'fendants  in 
not  api)rising  them  of  the  value  of  the  box,  and  they  found 
a  verdict  for  the  defendants.  Th(>  case  was  taken  to  the 
(j,t.e(>n's  Ijs'nch,  and  the  decision  turn<'d  on  th'-  duty  of  the 
owner  to  give  noiice,  and  its  effect  on  the  cai'rier's  liability  ; 
on  which  points  then;  was  a  disagreement.  Hi'.sr,  .1.,  pi'o- 
testcd  against  the  introduction  of  what  he  thought  a  new 
principle  in  the  law  relative  to  carri(!rs,  viz.  :  That  the  own- 
er of    a  parcel  of    value,  such  pai'ccl    having    i\othing    in 

"The  reports  of  tlio  two  fornuM-  oa-ies  coiiiiiiii  uothius^  at)out  tlio  ciir- 
rier's  notice. 
'MBuiii.  iV:  Aid.  21. 


t'll.    IV. J 


NOTiCKS  ANi>  riiioii;  i:i  riHT. 


85 


its  ;i[)i)c'!ir!iiu'o  iiulicalivc  of  its  coiitciits  l)(>iii<i'  of  small 
value,  is  Ixninil  unaski'd  by  llu'  caviicr  to  state  what  it  is 
worth.  A  carrier  who  has  '/ivvi\  n.)  notice  is  an  insurer. 
Here,  if  the  (lefeiulauis  had  irivcu  no  notice,  the  [)laintiffs, 
unasked  l»y  tiie  defendants,  were  not  hound  to  say  a  sylhi- 
l)le  as  to  the  value  of  the  hox.  Ti!;'  (d'fect  of  a  notice  is  to 
jirevent  the  necessity  of  a  particular  inciuiry  in  each  case. 
It  does  not  aifect  liis  responsihility  in  case  of  ndsfeasancc 
or  neuliii'eni'c.  Ilaviu'^  jriven  the  notice,  he  is  no  longer  an 
insurer  of  [)arcels  of  value,  hut  lie  is  still  liable  for  negli- 
trence  or  misfeasance  even  if  i':ci'.'  value  be  not  declared. 
Silence  docs  no!  amount  to  fraud.  This  was  a  case  of  silence 
only  and  therefore  U'lt  like  <}i')!i<in  r.  Paipitoii.  But  the 
other  judges  took  a  contrary  \Iew.  They  agreed  with  him 
that  if  the  cai-ricr  ga\c  no  notice,  there  was  no  duty  on  the 
siMider  to  coinmunicaie  the  value.  "If  the  ciirrier,''  said 
IIor.KOYi),  .1,.  "had  given  r.o  notice  in  this  case  that  he 
would  not  !)e  an:-wcral)le  for  jjarccls  of  value,  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  would  not  have  li";'n  tlie  duty  of  the  i)laintiffs, 
when  ihcy  bi'ought  good-^  to  him,  to  spt'cify  their  quality  or 
valiu>  ;  for  then  it  would  have  been  his  duty  to  make  in- 
(|uiry,  if  he  either  wished  to  have  a  ri'ward  projiortionate 
to  their  value,  or  to  know  whether  they  we;'(>  goods  of  that 
•  juality  for  which  he  iiad  a  sutlicicntlv  si'cure  conveyance  ; 
for  if  lie  had  not.  he  might  lawfully  have  refused  to  ti'ke 
them.  *  *  ^  In  cases  where  tlu'  carrier  h:is  not  gi'.cu 
notice  or  where  the  notice  does  not  conic  to  the  knowledge 
of  a  plaintilf,  he  holds  himself  out  as  a  conunon  carrier  to 
fake  goods  in  geii'i'al.  and  he  would  then  be  bound  to  in- 
([\iire  the  \aiue,  eilher  if  he  expects  an  additional  rewiud. 
or  if  he  has  a.ny  objection  to  carry  any  particular  article.'* 
II(!  and  the  two  other  judges,  however,  agreed  that  the  ef- 
fect of  the  omission  of  the  owner  to  inform  the  carrier  of 
the  value  prevented  him  from  exercising  the  care  he  would 
ha\«'  given  and  thus  i-clicved  him  from  lial)ility  except  for 
misfea-<an''e.  Havlkv,  ,I.,  said  there  might  be  two  ob- 
jects  in   such  a    notice   as   this  ;    the   one    to   secure    to   the 


>^. 


t¥. 


^m 


Ikii'ii 


V..^- r 


86 


Tlir.  COXTHACTS  OF  CAIIlUKltS. 


[vu. 


<-  ; 


coiicli  proprietor  a  compensation  proportional  to  the  risk; 
the  other  to  enable  him  to  put  parcels  of  the  greatest  value 
in  ii  place  of  the  greatest  security.  The  risk  upon  a  parcel 
of  great  vahuMs  great.'r  than  that  upon  a  small  one.  'i'he 
value  is  a  (emp:>tion  to  thieves  to  make  attempts  whii'Ii,  hut 
for  that  value,  thev  would  not  mike.  The  omission,  there- 
fore, to  a])pris('  the  coach  proprietor  of  the  value  operates 
ill  tv,-o  wars.  It  deprives  the  [jroprietors  of  the  extra  com- 
i)e:isali()n  tlu>\  ouuhl  to  have  and  it  jjreveiits  them  fi'om  lak- 
ln<'- that  extraordinary  i-aution  which,  upon  a  i)au.  i  of  ex- 
traordinarx'  value,  they  naturally  would  taki'.  The  value  is 
an  iii'-'redient  to  he  taken  into  consideration  hecausc  that  may 
he  o-ross  negligence  in  the  ci'.sc  of  ;i  parcel  of  large  value 
which  would  he  ordinary  cure  in  the  case  of  a  parctd  of  small 
value.  Tlu^  plaintiffs  having  prevented  this  extra  care  heing 
taken  l>y  the  cai-rier  should  hear  the  loss.  Aiujott,  (".  -T., 
thoui^'ht  that  if  the  carrier  had  known  the  contents  of  the 
1)()X  he  would  have  taken  better  care  of  it  ;  lu>  could  not 
take  upon  himself  to  say  that  he  would  not.  An  opportun- 
ity at  least  to  do  so  ought  to  have  been  given  him  hy  tiie 
])laintiffs. 

§  -S7.  (.'rificisiH  on  f/n's  Pniff/C''. — in  an  old  work  on 
Carriers  it  is  said  :  "'The  favor  which  tlu^  courts  iiave  always 
shown  to  carrit;rs,  in  I'clieving  them  where  any  circumstan- 
ces of  a  fra\idulent  nature  have  appeannl,  has  p(>rhaps  in- 
duc(>d  the  latter  to  limit  their  responsiljiiily  in  all  casi's 
Avhere  the  goods  are  hcyond  a  certain  value  ;  and  thus  the 
l)eing  allowed  to  make  a  s])ecial  co;iti'a<'l  in  some  justiliuMe 
cases  has  esiahlislicd  itself  into  a  i)retense  for  exemjjting 
thnnselves  from  the  common  law  liability,  without  an  ad- 
yanced  price,  in  almost  all  othei's.  I-'oi-  a<  there  are  but 
very  few  parcels,  etc.,  in  comparison,  of  a  value  Ixdow  the 
limit  which  carriers  have  tixed  as  tin;  extent  of  their  resjion- 
sibility,  it  will  appear  that,  except  in  their  being  conipellii- 
])le  to  take  the  charge  of  goods  as  public  servants,  and  the 
form  of  action  against  them  grounded  on  such  a  relation 
which  an  injured   jjarty  has   it  still   in   his  power   to  adapt 


CII.   IV.] 


NOTICKS  AND  THKIU  Kl-TKC'T. 


87 


iK'cor(lin,ir  to  circuinstaiu'cs,  no  i)iirt  of  the  securities  creasy 
rciuedios  contcinplated  by  the  aiu'ient  coiiunou  hiw  for  the 
(greater  faeilities  of  eoinmercial  intercourse  at  present 
remain,  wlierever  tlie  vahie  of  the  goods  falls  within  the 
effect  of  these  notices.  Whilst,  therefore,  the  power  of 
tixinir  the  additional  premium  on  valual)]e  goods  is  usurped 
by  such  arbitrary  and  int(U"est(>d  parties,  and  the  general 
inclination  of  the  pul)lic  to  avoid  sul)jecting  themselves  to 
extortion,  and  a  conse(iuent  general  neglect  to  give  the 
notice  rcfiuircd,  continues,  carriers  instead  of  being  what 
they  were  originally  intended,  useful  and  faithful  subsidia- 
ries to  public  commerce,  prove  only  arbitrary  extortioners 
and  succ(>ssful  evaders  of  the  common  law  policy."  '•'' 

§  <SS.  Xoficf^s  (IS  to  Valiw  and  Character  of  Goods  — 
yV/p  /i'ldf  In  America . — Mr.  (Jreenleaf  states  the  rule  in 
this  country  thus  :  "It  is  now  well  settled  that  a  common 
carrier  may  (pialifv  his  liiil)ility  by  a  general  notice  to  all 
who  may  ein])loy  him,  of  any  reasonable  recjuisition  to  be 
observed  on  their  part,  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  delivery 
and  entry  of  pai'cels  and  the  information  to  be  given 
to  iiim  of  their  contents,  the  rates  of  freight  and  the  like; 
as,  for  example,  that  he  will  not  be  responsil)le  for  goods 
al)()ve  the  value  of  a  certain  sum,  unless  they  are  entered 
as  such  and  paid  accordingly."  '"  This  is  an  exception  to 
the  American  docti'ine  that  a  common  carrier  can  not  limit 
his  lial)ility  by  notice,  and  the  decisions  in  the  different 
iStates  fully  sustain  this  (juotation.  Thus  in  an  early 
Georgia  case  the  court  say  :  "The  only  modification  of  the 
e(unm()n  law  rule  which  wc  admit  is  the  riglit  of  tiie  carrier 
by  notice  brought  home  to  the  [)assenger  [owner]  to  recjuirc 
the  latter  to  state  the  nature  and  value  of  the  pro))erty 
bailed ;  and  to  avail  himself  of  any  fraudulent  acts  or 
sayings   of  the  bailor."  ''     Speaking   of  the   English  cases 


'■'  .lercmy  on  Ciirricrs.  cli.  -t  §  1  (181.")). 

'"  2  Gicciih'jif  on  Evidcneo,  see.  iUu     Approved  in  McMillan  v.  Michi- 
gan &c.  J{.  Co..  10  Mirh.  7!)  (1SG7). 
!■  Fish  V.  Chainnan.  '2  (ia.  :U9  (1847). 


88 


THE  COXTKACTS  OF  CAKRIKRS, 


[cil.   IV. 


*l 


y 


li 


.i 


wherein  it  Is  held  that  an  emi)h)yer  will  he  pn'suiued  to 
know  the  contents  of  notiees  whicli  were  puhlished  exten- 
sively, and  which  were  reasonable  and  v/ere  intended  to 
prevent  fraud,  as  by  requiring  shippers  to  state  the  value  of 
their  goods,  Cowicx,  J.,  in  Coh^  v.  Gntxhriii,^'^  said:  "80 
\()n<*^  as  the  printed  notice  of  a  eoin'.non  carrier  is  contined 
to  the  purposes  which  I  have  enunicratcil,  and  others  calcu- 
hited  to  save  himself,  without  mischief  to  his  customer  or 
for  the  l)enetit  of  the  latter,  I  see  no  ol)jection  in  principle 
to  <nving  it  full  effect.  So  far  it  is  not  a  refusal  to  carry  for 
a  reasonable  reward.  So  far  it  is  not  a  limitation  of  the 
carrier's  liability,  lie  merely  declares  to  the  customer 
what  is  true  and  just.  'You  know  the  value  of  your 
o-oods  ;  I  will  not-  rummage  your  parcel:  1  will  take  your 
own  account ;  but  \  will  not  incur  the  responsibility  of  a 
common  carrier  unless  your  .-iccouut  shall  prove  true.  If 
you  connnit  a  fraud  or  deal  captiously  or  capriciously  on 
your  own  part,  you  can  not  complain  if  my  duty  is  reduced 
to  that  of  a  mandatory."  In  a  New  Ilampshii-e  case,  in  a 
suit  against  a  railroad  company  the  company  offered  to 
prove  !>  notice  given  which  exeini)tcd  them  from  being  liable 
for  all  losses  not  caused  by  themselves  or  agcnits,  and  also 
providing  that  they  should  not  be  liable  "foi-  a  greater 
amount  than  $100  on  any  one  package  or  article,  unless  the 
value  thereof  be  disclosed  and  an  extra  amount  paid  there- 
for. This  notice  was  shown  to  have  lieen  known  to  the 
plaintiff,  l)ut  his  assent  to  the  terms  was  not  shown.  It 
was  held  that  the  notice  was  not  binding  on  tlu;  plaintiff  ex- 
cept as  to  the  clause  limiting  the  anu)nnt  of  liability.  1'ku- 
LKY,  J.,  said:  "We  do  not  mean  to  hold  that  there  are  no 
cases  in  which  the  carrier  may,  by  notice,  define  aiul  (lualify 
his  responsiI)iIity.  It  may  be  (|uite  reasonable  that  he 
should  insist  on  projier  information  as  to  the  value  of  the 
article  which  he  carries.  This  would  not  schmu  to  be  any 
infringement  upon  the  principle  of  the  ancient  rule.  He 
must  have  a  right  to  know  what  it  is  that  he  undertakes  to 
'"  lil  ^Ven(^.2.^1  (183S). 


CM.    IV. 


NOTICKS  AM)  TIlKIi:   KKI  T.CT. 


8!) 


ciirrv,  1111(1  the  iiinount  ami  extent  of  his  risk.  ^^'('  can  see 
notliinu:  that  ouirht  to  prevent  liini  from  retjuirinu'  notiee  of 
the  value  of  th(^  commodity  delivered  to  him,  when  from 
its  natun^  or  the  shape  and  condition  in  which  he  receives  it, 
he  may  need  tlie  information  :  nor  why  lie  should  not  insist 
on  t)einiij  paid  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  jroods  and 
the  conse(iuent  amount  of  his  risk."  '■'  The  American 
courts  plac(!  the  justice  of  this  exception  more  on  the  j^nmnd 
of  the  rii^ht  of  a  cai'rier  to  have  this  kind  of  information, 
and  the  fraud  practiced  upon  him  in  withholdinii:  it,  tiian  on 
the  Kiiijflish  argument  as  to  the  consideration.  Where  the 
slii[)per  knows  that   the  carrier  demands  and   has  a  rii^ht  to 


•'•' .M(isc>  V.  IJostoti  U.  Cii.,  i{  N.  It.  71  (is.')!).  Sec.  also,  .ludson  v. 
West. Til  |{.  Cn.,  C  Allen.  -IS.")  (ISfW) ;  Kiilliiinu  V.  I'liitcd  .States  Express 
Co..  ;i  Kas.  i>(i,")  (ISO.'));  Farmers  Bank  v.  Clianiiilain  Trans.  Co., -J;'.  Vt. 
1S(>  (1S.")1);  Mairiiin  v.  Diiisninrc.  (1-J  N.  Y.  X>  (ls7."));  I.a\sren<-e  v.  New 
York  iSii'.  it.  Co..  ;{()  C()im.(;;»  (IS(lii);  Kil  el  v.  l/ivinf;ston.  (i  1  IJaih.  17!) 
(lS7i');  Tlie  May  l^tiieen.  I  Newh.  4(i.")  (I:i.")l):  New  . Jersey  Steam  Nav. 
Co.  V.  Mereliants  liank.  (i  How.  :t44  ,U>-1S)  ;  Hopkins  v.  Westeott.  (5 
Blatelif.  (!1  (ISiJS). 

In  Illinois  iliere  is  a  <;oo(l  deal  of  eonfnsion  ia  the  decisions  on  this 
(|neslion.  The  ease  of  Western  Transportation  Co.  v.  Xewhall.  21  III. 
-K'lC)  (isiiO).  ill  whieh  it  is  said:  "He  -nay  qualify  hisliatiility  by  a  f;i:enera] 
notice  lo  all  who  employ  him  of  any  reas:  •!:;;! 'n-  i,  t|;;;.'tion  to  he  observed 
on  their  part  in  reijard  t(»  the  manner  of  delivery  and  enfy  of  jtareels.and 
the  information  to  he^iven  him  of  their  contents,  the  raies  of  frei;:;ht  and 
the  like:  as  for  example,  thai  he  will  not  be  responsible  for  <^oods  above 
the  value  of  a  certain  sum  iinle-s  they  are  entered  as  such  and  paid  for  ae- 
eordim^ly."  has  been  mneh  (iiialilied  if  no!  overruled  by  later  eases.  .See 
Aihims  lsx])ress  Co.  v.  Stetlaners.  til  Ml.  1S4  (1S7I);  <)i)penhoimer  V. 
I'niled  States  Kxpress  Co..  G'.»  III.  (J'J  (ls7li).  which  seem  to  intimate 
that  where  tliere  is  nothiiij;-  from  which  the  eourl  can  imimte  want  of 
jrood  faith  on  the  ])art  of  the  shipper,  the  notice  as  to  value  will  not 
avail  the  carrier  unless  both  knowledge  and  assent  to  its  terms  are 
shown.  Htit  in  IJoskowitz  v.  Adams  Kxpress  Co. ,11  Cent.  L.J. .;!S;)  (1S71)), 
decided  while  this  liook  \\;is  in  press,  there  is  a  dissent inu,'  opinion  by 
Sheldon,  , I.,  in  these  words:  "Where  the  provision,  as  here,  is  for  the 
imrpose  of  seeiirlnjr  diselo<nre  of  value,  knowled;;e  of  it  bronj^ht  lioniP 
to  the  consiiTiiors  is  snllieient.  I5nt  when  it  is  a  simi'le  restriction  of 
common  law  liai)ility,  thi'ii  there  must  be  assent  in  addition  to  knowl- 
edfje.  *  *  »  'l"he  opinion,  inadvertently  I  think,  overlooks  the  dis- 
tinction." In  this  stale  of  the  authorities  it  is  imiiossible  to  say  what, 
the  rule  on  this  siibieei  in  Illinois  ir,. 


Rfl*^^ 


90 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAIIUIEHS. 


[CU.   IV 


;  \ 


I'-  ^ 


•tlemund  information  ronccniini?  tlu-  vnluo  of  iiis  jroods, 
silence  on  liis  part  is  the  same  as  an  assertion  that  liis  <r()oil» 
are  of  no  jxreater  value  than  that  su,u<reste(l  by  the  carrier. 
The  carrier  is  thereby  not  only  deprived  of  his  adequate 
reward,  hut  is  misled  as  to  the  degree  of  care  and  circum- 
spection which  he  should  exercise.  Of  notices  of  this  do 
iscrii)tion  it  remains  to  l)e  said  that  courts  and  juries  uro 
liberal  in  inferring;  knowledixe  on  the  part  of  shi])pers  rrom 
the  fact  of  their  publication.''" 

§  «!».  Uinrnsmmhlc  C/iarf/fn  not  I'enuiKcil . — iJut  thoujib 
a  carrier  is  thus  pei-niitted  to  "jfrade  his  char^res  according  to 
the  value  of  the  goods  and  the  risk  he  runs,  he  is  not  at 
liberty  to  charge  whatever  he  pleases.  His  chai-gcs  must  be 
reasonable,  and  anything  like  extortion  on  his  i)art  would  bo 
promptly  checked  by  the  courts.'^'  Where  an  expi-css  com- 
pany transported  for  the  jjlaintiff  a  package  of  bonds  with 
cou[)()ns  attached,  valued  at  $40, (»<)(),  from  New  Orleans  to 
!Xew  York,  which  they  refused  to  delivei-  to  the  plaintiff 
except  upon  the  payment  to  them  of  the  sum  of  $400,  being 
one  per  centum  on  the  estimated  value,  and  l)y  the  receipt 
which  they  gave  for  the  package  they  were  not  responsible 
for  any  loss  or  damagi;  other  than  that  caused  by  the  fraud 
or  gross  negligence  of  themselves  or  their  agents  ;  and  the  ev- 
idence was  that  they  bestowed  the  same  care  and  diligence  in 
the  trans})ortation  of  other  articles  and  packages  without  ref- 
erence to  their  value,  it  was  lii-ld  that  there  was  no  reason  for 
■enhancing  the  charge  for  transportation  in  proportion  to  the 
value  of  the  articles  transported  ;  and  that  as  the  charge  ex- 
ceeded even  the  usual  rate  of  insurance  between  New  Orleans 
and  New  York,  it  was  unreasonable  and  extrava<rant.'- 

§00.  Xoth'ps  —  When  iScrfwa/j/p. —  Notices  as  to  value 
and  in  derogation  of  the  cai-rier's  liability,  though  con- 
tained in  the   same   paper  are    severable  —  the    benetit   of 

^  Opponhi'iiner  v.  United  States  Kxi)ress  Co..  Oi)  111.  (52  (lS7:i)- 
^' Ilarris  V.  Paekwood,  3  Taunt.  204   (ISIO) ;   Wallace  v.  Matthews,  ;J!) 
■Ga.  G17  (ISO!).) 

-^  Ilolford  V.  Adams.  2  Duer    171  (IS.'):!). 


lii! 


<*II.   IV.] 


\()TI(  r,S  AND  TIIKIU  KKFKCT. 


91 


the  former  iMMHi;  ullowi'tl  to  tlu-  carrier  upon  pmof  of 
knowledire  liy  llu-  shipper;  the  hitler  l)eiii;j:  iliiavailni;^  ill 
the  al)seiiee  of  evi(hMie(i  of  assi'iit.  Ill  ( tppi'nlichni'r  v. 
I'littcil  Stdti'H  /'jX/ii'css  ( 'diiijidii//,'^'  a  receipt  for  a  jjareel 
coiitaiiiiiiji"  jewelry  wortii  $;K<'^<>'N  was  iriveii  hy  an  express 
conipany  to  a  iiriii  whieii,  for  inoretJKm  a  yciir,  liad  I)eeii  in 
the  li:il)it  of  seudiii;;  p:ircels  hy  the  express  coinpiiuy.  and 
hiid  ivept  a  IxioU  of  receipts  contaiiiiiiLr  stipuhitions  (pialify- 
iiiLMhe  liahility  of  the  company,  wiiich  they  usually  sent 
wltli  parcels  to  l)e  forwarded,  aiitl  which  on  such  occasions 
were  tilled  up  hy  the  express  company.  The  receipt  in 
<piestion  was  similar  to  all  the  others,  some  of  its  conditions 
heinir  dcsii^ned  to  insure  ^ood  faith  on  tlu'  p;irt  of  the  firm, 
us  that  the  company  should  not  l>e  answerahle  for  "  any  loss 
or  dainaire  of'any  hox,  packajre,  or  thin*.'  for  ovi'r  $">(),  un- 
less the  just  or  true  value  "  shouUl  he  stated  in  the  irceipt, 
while  others  were  of  a  cliaracler  l.<nitinu'  the  duty  of  the 
company  as  an  insurer.  The  cou"  lu'ld  that  the  <|ualifying 
clauses  were  severahle  ;  that  the  clause  as  to  value  would  he 
taken  to  he  assenteil  to  hy  the  employer  from  his  havini!: 
hahilually  used  similar  ri'ceipts  of  the  company,  hut  that  a 
like  assent  to  the  clauses  limitin<r  the  liahility  of  the  com- 
pany would  not  he  presumed.  Hut  where  an  owner  of 
•roods,  intrusted  to  a  railroad  company  for  transportation 
and  lost,  seeks  to  charjre  them  as  carriers,  hy  proviiiiT  the 
terms  of  one  of  their  own  notices,  as  to  their  rates  aiul 
rules  of  transportation,  he  must  take  the  notice  as  a  whole; 
and  the  defendants  are  entitled  to  the  heiielits  of  any  (>X(H'p- 
tion  which  it  cont;'.ins.-'' 

§  !M .  (U>njiivti)ui  and  Ainliiiiuoux  ('undidons. — \(jtices 
must  not  l)e  conllictiiiir  or  amhiiruous.  In  Goiuio'  v. 
./o// //,'-'•'  (JiuHs,  (\  ,1.,  said  that  carriers  should  he  very 
careful  that  their  notii-es  corresponded  in  all  ])laces  where 


;■  ! 


•^  Oil  111.  (\-l  (ls7-_>) :  iiiul  set'  Eric  U.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  8t   111.  2:5!)  (1S7(J) ; 
Moses  V.  Boston  J{,  Co..  '21  N.  II.  71  (185]). 
'^*  Burroiiirhs  v.  Norwich  I'tc.  K.  Co.,  100  Miiss.  120  (ISG'.J;. 
»lloIt.  :il7  (1810). 


98 


rilK  CONIKACTS  or  (■AI!l!IKU.«i. 


[ClI.    IV. 


•  \W 


tlu'V  uiTi'  allixc'il  a."  lli<ii'  liaMlity  \v(»ul(l  he  atVoctod  liy  ;i 
variance.  If  a  carrier  puMiNii  two  diifcri-iil.  notices,  eacli 
of  which  is  before  liie  public  al  ti>e  same  time,  he  will  lu* 
bound  l)V  the  least  lu-iieiicial  of  the  two.-''  'I'hus  in  Volxh'n 
V.  /iolfo)!,'-'  on  a  l)oard  in  the  carrier's  otHce  it  was  stated 
tiiat  he  would  not  l»e  liable  for  jewels,  "however  small  the 
value,"  unless  entered  aii<l  paid  for  as  such.  It  was  provi'd 
that  he  had  also  circulatctl  a  number  of  printed  hand  bills 
containin<,Mi  list  of  his  coaches,  and  statinj:  that  he  would 
not  be  liable  for  any  article  "above  the  value  of  £.V'  un- 
less entered.  I^oid  KiJ.KMioitortiii  ruled  that  tlu;  no 
in  the  hand  bills  iroverni'd.  and  dispensed  with  any  neees. 
to  attend  to  the  notice  in  the  ollice.  So.  if  at  the  time  of 
the  <arriaj;<'  he  delivei's  a  notice  without  any  lindlation  of 
responsibility,  any  prior  notice  containin«;  such  a  limitation 
is  therein' nullified.  I?ut  a  second  a(h'ertisement ,  which  i.s 
simpiv  a  reannounc<'inent  of  some  of  the  provisions  of  a 
former  one  will  not  I'cnder  the  lirst  nujialory.  Thus  in 
Jialdii'iii  r.  ('()lh')is,'-^  a  standinir  advertisement  in  a  iu'wspa- 
l)er  announced  that  the  defendants  wei-e  the  owners  of  a  lino 
of  packets  consisting;  of  six  ships,  irivinir  their  names,  ton- 
naji'c,  commanders  and  price  of  passairc,  and  that  one  ship 
woidd  sail  every  second  .^[onday.  It  also  stated  that  the 
owners  would  not  b(>  liable  for  jewelry,  bullion.  Sir.,  not 
specially  entered.  A  latei'  advtM'ti>ement  >:ave  notice  that 
the  Vazoo,  one  of  the  line,  would  lcav(>  the  port  on  tlu^ 
next  Monday.  l!  was  liehl  that  this  did  not  do  away  with 
the  special  provisions  contained  iii  the  lirst  advertisement. 
In  an  early  Maryland  case,-''  the  cai'rier  had  publisheil  in 
several  newspapers  ilie  time  when  his  staixes  would  start  and 
arrive,  which   pulilication   contained  the   followiiiijj  clause: 

■■"'Miinn  V.  nnl<or.2  Stjuk.  2r).''>  (lS17i. 

"' •!  Ciuiip.  lOs  (ISO!)).  In  tills  cMSf  a  qiiosti'Mi  !ire«'  asto  liow  tln^  con- 
tents of  tlio  hoard,  whicli  was  inlaid  in  the  wall  of  ilio  ulUcc.  should  ]w 
proved,  and  tlic  court  admitted  an  examined  copy. 

•■i-it  Hoh. 'KiS  (IStr.). 


»'J}arncv  v.  I'reiitiss.  I  II.  i^  .J..  :ir:,  >-. 


7  Am.  Dec.  liTO  (ISIS). 


II! 


IP 


CM.   IV. 


NOTICKS  AND  TIIRIll  KlI'KrT. 


!•;{ 


"Kmi'c  and  alldWiuici'  nf  hairii'iiyi'  as  usual.  All  l»a":"ra";i'  to 
!)(•  at  tlu'  risk  of  the  owiht  tliiTfof.  All  Iiayrirayi'  over 
twenty  pounds  will  hereafter  positively  In-  <'liarjr<'d  and  he 
at  the  risk  of  the  owners  there(»f."  The  plaintiffs  sued 
for  the  value  of  a  pareel  which  the  carrier  had  fail- 
ed to  deliver:  it  was  adniitleil  that  hcfoi-e  placiuLT  it 
in  the  carrier's  hands  he  had  known  of  the  advertisement. 
The  Court  of  Appeals,  without  (h-cidin^-  whether  the  car- 
rier could  or  could  not  I'vade  his  re^ponsiliility  by  puhlica- 
tion  of  notice,  ordered  judjiinent  fm'  the  plaintiff,  on  the 
irrouiid  that  if  (-arriers  "can  by  their  pul»lications  exempt 
themselves  from  their  liability,  then  the  publiciitions  in  the 
laui:iiaii"e  of  the  exceptions  should  lie  plain,  explicit  and  free 
from  all  ambi<jruity.  Hut,  as  in  the  case  befoi-e  the  court, 
tlie  defendant ,  in  the  adveitiscment  published  by  him,  has 
used  the  most  doubtful  iind  ambiji'uous  lan,irua|;e,  he  there- 
fore stands  in  the  same  |)redicanjent  as  if  no  publication 
had  been  made." 

§  !»•_'.  Without  Noticr  no  Dnti/  (o  State  Value. — Where  a 
carric'.'  has  ^ivcn  no  noti<'e  of  any  limitation  of  his  liability, 
ilie  owner  of  i:(i<»ds  is  not  !)o;iiil  to  ,-.!;i|e  llieir  value.  The 
cari'ier  may  ask  the  \-,ilu>'.  and  tliei:  any  false  answ<"r  will  1)1- 
fi'audulcn!  iiii-l  will  ex(iisi>  him.  oi',  as  lias  been  shown,  if 
there  is  anv  concealment  or  (|cce])li()!i  the  siwuv  i  onse(|uence 
will  follow.^" 

^  IK'i.  Xor  W'/ii'i-f  ('arrirr  //as  OfJicr  /iifoniiatiou. — 
When  the  value  of  the  noods  delivered  is  ap))arent,  a  state- 
ment of  their  value  l>y  the  >hipi)er  would  be  useh'ss,  and 
is  tlierefori'  unnecessary.  Mr.  Anu'ell,  citinir  ^/ars/l  r. 
Ilorue'^^  and  Slorv  on  nailments,'-'  stales  the  law  to  be  that 

'"Pliillips  V.  Ivuli".  s  I'ick.  Is-J  (^is-ja) :  Maikliii  v.  Wiiterliousc.  Tt  Hiiij;. 
•1V2.  2  .M.  it  P.  ;U!i  I  ISJS) :  IJiildwiii  v.  ('uUiiw.  !>  Knli.  -KiS  (1S4:o  :  Fiissctt 
V.  I{ii:irk.  :?  l-:i.  Ami.  (i'.M  (ISIS) ;  I,cvois  v.  <J!ilc.  17  I-ii.  Ann.  ;{(»•_>  (ISO.")) ; 
I.ittlf  V.  MosidM  itc.  K.  Co..  tiii  M<'-  ".i:"'  (ISTI'O:  McirlKints  Disimtoh 
Trans.  Co.  v.  I{ullf<.  s(l  HI.  17:?  0S7.".) ;  Brown  v.  Camden  etc.  11.  Co.  8:1 
Pa.  St.  :n(i  (1S77). 

••".5  1$.  &C.  :i2-J  (l.s2(j). 

»-'  Sec.  .">72. 


I 


m   ■:';' 


94 


THE  CONTIIAC'TS  OF  fAIIRIKliS. 


[rii.  IV. 


"i! 


4 «  ■ 

•ill; 


no  j)resiinipti(>n  of  the  waiver  of  the  notice  can  arise  from 
the  rc'-eipt  of  goods  inanifestly  al)ove  tlie  value  sialed 
therein,  witliout  any  demand  for  extra  [)ayment.''  IJut  tins 
is  very  far  from  ln'in;:;  correct,  as  an  examination  of  tlie 
cases  will  demonstraU-.  In  Beck  r.  A'?"?/;.s',"  under  a  notice 
not  to  he  answerable  for  cash,  notes,  jewels,  watches,  hice, 
silk,  etc.,  or  '*  any  other  goods  of  what  natnre  or  kind  so- 
ever, '  excei)t  on  conditions  which  were  not  complicMl  with 
by  the  custoipc,  it  was  held  by  Lio  Hi.an(\  ,].,  that  t hi; 'car- 
rier was  liable  for  the  value  of  a  cask  of  brandy  intrust(Kl  to 
his  laiT.  The  opinion  expressed  by  Lk  Br.ANC,  .1.,  it  is  true 
other  judges  in  .several  later  cases — Jhncn  r.  Froiiionf'"  and 
Levi  V.  Wafcr/inuse,^''  for  example — refused  to  follow.  P.ut 
these  cases  can  hardly  be  said  to  overrule  it.  \\\  Jiairn  i. 
Frnuiint  th(>  ))ackage  sent  was  a  larg*-  lijunper  basket ,  and 
Lord  ELi-ENHOKorcH  said:  "  I  do  not  think  the  case  cited 
jToverns  the  i)rescnt.  There  th»'  carrier  knowini;  that  th.c 
article  intrusted  to  him  was  a  cask  ol  i)randy,  niM-e.-sarily 
knew  that  it  was  aI)ove  the  valtn>  of  £.">.  Hut  here,  what 
was  there  to  inciicat*'  to  the  defendant  the  contents  of  the 
package?  It  might  have  contained  cash,  l)auknol(vs,  ])late  or 
wtitchesto  the  amount  of  XIOOO,  or  it  might  have  been  Idled 
with  c(>arse  materials  not  worth,  forty  shillings."  In  Lvrl  r. 
Wdfpi'/ioiinr  it  was  not  clear  that  the  servant  of  the  carrier 
knew  of  the  valm*  of  the  jiackage  ;  it  simply  appeared  that 
he  might  have  inferre<l  its  value.  The  Anu'riean  authori- 
ties, however,  noiu'  of  which  are  citi>d  l)V  Mr.  .\iigell,  fully 
sustain  the  tirst  senten<'e  of  this  section.  In  /}ns/,-i>iiu'fz  r. 
Atlanm  I'Jxpi'cxs  Com  pain/,'"  the  court  say  :  ^-Wheii  a  small 
package  contains  an  article  f»f  gri'at  value,  there  is  great 
})ropriety  the  carrier   should  have   information   thereof,  but 

*''  Aii;^oll  oil  < 'iiiiicrs.  >oi'.  -jrn. 

•":t  Ciiiiip.  •jc.r  (Isl-J.; 

«4('aiup.  40  (1SI4). 

•■«  1  Prill'.  Kx.  -JSO  (isi.-,).  Soo  also  M;ir-li  v.  Iloriic  .".  15.  I'i  ('.  Wl-l 
(182(i):  Tiion);r('tul  v.  .M.usli.  (Jow,  l(l."i  (ISlli);  Allied  v.  llonif,  :{ 
Stark.  i:{(>  (1s2l>). 

■'".">  I'ent.  F..  .1.  .")S  (IS77).    Su|iri>im>  Coiirl  i>f  lllliii)i». 


CH.  IV.] 


NOTICKS  AND  TIIKIK  KFKKCT, 


f)5. 


2  J 


in  lar<r<',  bulky  articles,  such  as  l)aiT('ls  of  tlour,  hales  of 
cotton  and  the  like,  there  ai>|)ears  to  l»e  no  necessity  for 
uivinjr  information  of  the  value,  as  the  carrier  can  detta- 
inino  that  for  hiniseif.  The  desijrn  is  to  insure  i^ood  faith. 
Was  an  iii(|uirv  made  of  a  shipper  of  the  valtie  of  the 
goods  about  to  be  shipped,  he  would  be  l)ound  to  state  truly 
the  value,  but  when  the  value  appears  in  the  packai^e  itself^ 
such  an  in(|uiry  would  be  useless,  and  a  voluntary  statenu'ut 
unnecessary."  **  In  a  case  in  Alab;una  two  bales  of  cotton 
were  delivered  to  an  express  company,  and  the  consijjjnor 
acccrpted  a  receipt  containin<r  printed  conditions  to  the  effect 
that  the  company  should  not  be  liable  for  a  sum  exceedinjr 
tifty  dollars  unless  the  value  of  the  "pai'kai;e"  was  stated 
in  the  n'ceipt.  The  value  was  not  stated,  and  was  not 
asked.  The  court  was  of  opinion  that  the  bales  of  cotton 
did  not  come  within  this  clause,  as  they  could  not  be  re- 
<;arded  as  "packages,"  a  word  usually  applied  to  small 
parcels  ;  and  that  the  vabu-  of  a  bale  of  cotton  was  a  thing 
j;en(>rallv  known.'''  Where  a  i)acka<re  delivered  to  an  ex- 
press  company  for  transportation  was  mai  cd  C.  O.  D, 
$2!*:?,  as  appeared  by  the  receipt  given  by  the  company,  the 
receipt  also  providing  that  articles  so  delivered  should  bo 
valui'd  under  $.'>(),  uidess  otherwise  stated  therein,  the 
company  w;is  charged  with  notice  of  the  valuv'  of  the  pack- 
age, and  with  liability  for  the  full  amount.'"'  So  where  the 
owner  of  a  package  told  the  carrier  that  it  contained 
])ap»'rs  as  valuable  as  money,  when  it  in  fact  contained 
money,  it  was  held  that  this  was  snthcient  to  put  the  carrier 
on  his  guard  as  to  thecals  which  sho  dd  be  taken  of  the 
package. ■•' 

§  1(4.    ^\o(ice  7iot   Complied    Wi(/i,   ^Vo  liccovfrij  a'  All. 
—  If  a   carrier  give    notice  that    ho  will  not   be  liable   for 

■^  \  siniiliir  view  is  oxprcssfil  in  Onulorff  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  S 
Biisli.  (Ky.)  I!t4  (18(57);  iin<l  s.-e  Iloslvowitz  v.  Adiuiis  Express  Co..  !• 
<'eiit.  r..  .f..  ;»S!l  (lS7(t) ;   Moses  v.  Boston  I'Sre.  K.  Co..  '21  X.  II.  71  (1S.-)1). 

■*'Soutliern  Express  Co.   v.  CrooU.  44  Ala.  ll.S  (1S7()). 

♦'  Van  Winkle  v.  Adams  Kx.  Co..  :{  Koht.  .5!l  (lSli4). 

«  Dwiglit  V.  Brewster,  1  I'iek.  .V)  (1S22). 


y() 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CARKIEKS. 


[CII.   IV. 


any  article  of  more  than  a  certain  value  unless  specially 
entered  as  such  and  paid  for  accordingly,  and  these  condi- 
tions arc  not  conii^lied  with,  the  owner  can  not  recover  any- 
thinir  —  not  even  the  smaller  value  excluded  in  the  notii'e/- 
But  where  the  terms  of  the  notice  are  that  the  carrier  will 
not  he  liable  beyond  a  cci-tain  sum,  that  sum  may  be  re- 
covered in  any  event.*' 

§  !!.").  Xotice  Mai/  he  Waived  h if  Carrier. — "Ther'  is  no 
doubt,"  said  IUylkv,  J.,  in  an  early  casc,^^  "that  common 
carriers  may  limit  their  responsibility  by  a  notice  that  tlicy 
will  not  l)e  answcralile  for  goods  of  more  than  a  certain 
value,  but  they  may  notwithstanding  a  general  notice  of 
that  description  l»e  bound  l)y  a  special  contract  with  any  in- 
dividual."     In    a  still  earlier  case,^''  Lord  ELi.KNHouorcHi 


*-  Izcit  V.  Moimtaiii.  4  I'::ist.  :<71  (1S();{);  Nicholson  v.  Willaii.  5  Kjist. 
507  (1><()4);  Yato  v.  Willaii. '2  East.  12S  (ISOl):  Clay  v.  Uillaii,  1  11.  151. 
21»S  (178!t);  Hatson  v.  Donovan. -1  1$.  it  Alil.  21  (1S2());  llairls  v.  rack- 
wood.:}  Tannt.  204  (IS'.O).  In  JJakhvin  v.  Collins.  It  Koh.  4(iS  (1S4.".). 
the  carritT  havinj;^  jjivcn  notice  that  he  would  not  he  liable  for  jewelry 
unless  sjieeially  einered.  the  shi])])!-!".  knowinjj  this,  sent  a  liox  of  jewelry 
williont  disclosing  the  c(nitent>.  'I'he  court  >aid:  "In  concln.-ion  the 
counsel  ur;;es  that  as  Ihe  defendants  have  not  delivered  any  liox  at  all. 
'hey  must  sliov.  that  it  was  lost,  or  account  to  the  plaintiff  for  ilie  apjia- 
rent  value  of  tlie  cont"'ni-.  lie  says  it  appeared  to  he  a  caudle  or  soda 
biscuit  bo\.  fioni  \\lii<h  we  may  infer  he  claims  that  tlie  defendants 
.shoidd  pay  thi-  value  of  a  box  of  candles  oi-  >oda  bi>cuits.  I5ut  the  ludy 
witness  wl'o  knew  auyiiiin;:;  about  the  contents  says  that  it  did  not  con- 
tain either  of  thc>e  articles.  t)ut  coiMaiue(l  jew  elry.  for  wliich  we  Ihiid; 
the  defendants  are  not  responsible  anil  shaviiiiis  to  which  no  value  is 
ullixed.  'J'iie  box  itself  is  called  by  the  witnesses  -a  two  ami  six-penny" 
affair,  whicii  we  think  is  rather  too  >mall  a  sum  to  come  within  our 
jurisdiction." 

«  Clarke  V.  (iray.  (i  East.  .")tl4:  2  Smitli.  (122:    t  Esji.  177  (isor.). 

^tllelsby  V.  Mears.  .")  IJ.  it  C.  .■)04  (lS2i;). 

^''  Evans  V.  Soule.  2  .M.  it  S.  1  ( ISi;?).  Where  an  exjiress  company  had 
uniformly  f^iven  reeeijjts  for  goods  coulainin;j:a  stipidation  that  thi-  c(uu- 
pany  would  not  be  answeralile  for  over  «•")<>  for  loss  of  any  ]>acka!;e  un- 
less its  true  value  shoidd  lie  set  out  in  the  receijit.  and  Ihe  coinjiany  had 
jiaid  !i  loss  to  the  i)laintiff-  from  which  it  wouhl  have  been  relieved  by 
lilcadinjr  the  qualifying  clauise.  and  afterwards  the  i)laiiitiffs  sued  the 
same  comi)any  for  another  loss,  it  was  held  tiial  tlie  company  was  not 
precluded  by  the  payment  of  the  first  loss  from  setting  up  the  defense  of 


cir.  rv.] 


NOTICES  AND  TIIEIU  EFFECT. 


97 


ruled  that  ii  notice,  that  the  carrier  would  not  be  iinswerahle 
for  loss  or  dania_!j:e,  unless  occasioned  by  the  actual  negli- 
frence  of  his  servants,  had  not  been  waived  by  his  having  on 
former  occasions  made  allowances  to  the  plaintiff  without 
in(|uii'in_ii"  into  the  cause  of  the  daniaire. 

The  waiver  may  be  made  l>y  the  agent  and  will  then  bind 
the  principal.  One  l)eing  told  by  the  clerks  of  the  defend- 
ant that  his  goods  will  i)e  sent  at  a  certain  rate,  and  dcdiver- 
ing  them  on  the  faith  of  this  statcnuMit,  can  not  be  charged 
more,  although  the  printed  I'ales  of  the  defendant  are 
higher."'  So,  though  the  notice  of  a  railroad  company 
states  that  goods  reci-ived  after  4  i'.  M.  will  not  be  forward- 
ed until  tlie  next  day,  the  receii)t  of  goods  after  that  time 
with  the  assurance  that  tiuy  will  be  forwarded  on  that  day 
will  amount  to  a  waiver  of  the  notice." 

If  an  exprc-s  (•om;)any  give  a  receipt  conditioned  that 
•'  where  tlu^  value  of  t!»e  pi'ojjiirty  is  not  s[)ecitied  in  the  n;- 
ceipl  the  coaipiiiy  will  not  !>;>  Iiabl(>  for  a  sum  exc(!eding 
liftv  tlollar>,"  th;'  company  will,  mil  withstanding,  be  liable 
for  t!»;'  full  valu  '  of  the  property  in  case  of  loss,  if  ii  ap- 
pear that  the  receiving  agent  of  the  company  was  correctly 
informed  of  iis  value  at  the  time  of  the  receipt  of  the 
g().)ds.'^  Wh.uv?  th:i  carricsr's  notice  declared  that  he  would 
not  b(>  accountable  for  goods  of  a  particular  description 
al)ove  a  certain  vaIu(^  unless  spccitied  and  "paid  for  as  such" 
when  deliv(U'ed  at  his  otlices,  and  an  article  of  the  kind  de- 
s(!ril)ed  was  k>ft  with  the  bookkeeper,  he  being  informed  of 
its  value  and  told  to  (-hargo  what  he  pleased,  which  would 
1)0  [laid  providvl  that  it  was  taken  care  of,  I^ord  Ellen- 
nouDiTUi'i  h^^ll  t'lit  th:;  prjkig.'  having  been  sent,  the  pay- 
ment was  waived  and  the  notice  unavailing.^'' 

it<  (lii;ilili,^:l  liiihility  ;i-i  sIdwii  by  a  lilvi'  oniulition  in  the  receipt.  Opimn- 
heinuT  v.  United  States  Express  Co  ,  «!)  111.  02  (tS72). 

w  Winktlcld  V.  Piiekinjjtoii,  2  C.  &  P.  5!!!)  (1827). 

«  Pii'kfonl  V.  fJiuiid  .Iiinetion  It.  Co.,  12  M.  &  W.  766  (1844). 

+VSoMl,hcra  Express  Co.  v.    \ewl)y,  M  Ga.   O;].')   (1867);  Kcmber  v. 
Southern  Express  Co.,  22  Ltv.  Ann.  l.'iS  (1870). 

«'  Wilson  V.  Freeniiin.  \\  Camp.  527  (1814). 
7 


■m 


ii-:A-) 


n 


98 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAlMilKRS. 


[oil.  IV. 


§  96.  Extent  of  Notiw. —  In  Itilnj  v.  Home,"'  it  was  in- 
tiinatcd  that  where  carriers  run  ti  coach  from  A  to  B  and 
back,  notice  that  tliey  limit  their  responsibility  on  the  car- 
v\i\"0  of  parcels  from  A  to  B  is  notice  that  thev  limit  it 
likewise  from  IJ  to  A  ;  and  it  was  oariy  determined  that  a 
notice  not  to  b(;  lial)l(!  for  goods  ))eyond  a  certain  sum  ap- 
plied to  the  property  of  passenirers  _<roinj;  by  the  coach  or 
other  carriage  as  well  as  to  goods  sent  to  be  carried.''' 

A  notice  suspended  in  the  offices  at  the  termini  of  the 
route  docs  not  affect  the  liability  of  the  carrier  for  goods 
received  at  interjnedintc'  i)iaccs.  In  (7oiff/rr  r.  Jo/fi/,''-  {hv 
defendant  was  the  i)roj)rictor  of  a  wagon  which  carried 
goods  l)(!tween  W  and  L,  passing  through  K  on  its  way.  In 
the  offices  at  "W  and  L  notices  were  displayed  restrict- 
ing the  lial)ility  of  the  carrier,  but  no  notice  was  put  up  in 
the  office  at  K,  where  the  goods  were  received.  It  was  iicld 
that  the  notice  did  not  attach  to  the  goods  received  at  E. 
But  where  a  parci;!  was  delivered  by  the  plaintiff's  agent  at 
W  to  the  defendant  to  be  carried  to  the  plaintiff,  who  re- 
sided in  London,  and  it  was  proved  that  the  plaintiff  re- 
i'.eivcd  notice  in  London  that  the  defendant  would  not  be 
liable  for  any  goods  exceeding  £')  in  value  unless  \r,m\  for 
accordingly,  "  delivered  either  there  or  to  their  agents  in 
the  country,"  Chief  .Justice  Annorr  I'uled  that  it  was  suffi- 
cient, especially  as  the  very  terms  of  the  notice  extended  to 
the  delivery  of  goods  to  agents  in  the  country.'"''  Where  a 
railroad  company,  which  was  a  common  carrier  of  passen- 
gers and  freight,  conn(>cting  at  a  certain  point  with  a  line  of 
.stcaml)oats,  kept  a  standing  advertiscMnent  as  to  the  boats 
with  which  it  would  connect,  and  that  through  tickets  would 
be,  furnished  and  baggage  transport((l  to  tlu;  terminus,  it 
was  held  that  the  information  was  jjublished  for  the  benetit 


«  5  Binir.  217;  '2  M.  &  P.  :5:}1   (18-28). 

«  Chirkc  V.  Oray.  (5  East,  not;  '2  Smith,  (522;  4  Esp.  177  (ISOr)). 

ailolt,  :n7  (ISIO). 

"Alfred  V.  Homo, :}  Stark.  13G  (1822). 


11. 


OTI.  IV.] 


NOTICES  AND  THEIR  EFFECT. 


99 


of  piissongors  only  and  that  shippers  could  not  avail  them- 
selves of  its  terms.''* 

§  97.  Modes  of  Giving  Notice  of  Limited  LlnhlUty. — 
The  methods  hy  which  carriers  have  souirht  to  convey  to  the 
l)ul)lic  (he  terms  on  which  they  desired  to  accept  goods  for 
transportation  are  (1),  by  advertisement  either  in  newspa- 
pers or  hand  hills  ;  (2),  l)y  exhil)iting  or  posting  notices,  as 
placards,  etc.  {<\),  hy  notices  printed  upon  bills  of  lading, 
receipts,  checks  and  tickets. 

§  98.  Adi'cvtlxonenfs. —  Notices  given  by  carriers  by  ad- 
vertising in  newspapi'rs  are  little  favored  l-y  the  courts.^ 
In  a  case  decided  in  1S25,'''"  in  order  to  charge  a  person  with 


■■■' Linvn-Mcc  v.  New  York  i^ip.  K.  (."o..  ;{(;  Coini.  (i;{  (1S0!»).  In  Eng- 
liiiul  il  is  held  thai  a  railway  cuinpany  is  entillcd  to  llio  protection 
a;i  liusi  rcs|>()iisil)iliiy  for  tlic  carria^o  of  animals  _ij;ivon  l)y  tlie  second 
jiroviso  of  17  and  is  \'ic.,  c.  ;>1,  <;  7.  altliongh  no  coniitlflo  contract  for 
tlu-  carriaL!;*'  lias  h;'cn  entered  into,  and  no  complete  delivery  has 
been  made;  il  is  eiioiiiih  if  the  animal  was  in  the  course  of  being  de- 
livered to  ur  reeeiv -il  by  the  conii)any.  llodgman  v.  West  Midland  R. 
('  ...  .■)  W.  .V  .^'  17,!:  ID  .Fnr.  X.  S.  07:5;  ;{;{  L.  J.  Q.  B.  -IWW:  VI  W.  K.  1254. 
alVirmed  on  appeai.  'li  W.  R.  7.')S,  0  B.  it  S.  .")(!()  (IStM).  So  where 
uwr  travels  on  a  drover's  jiass  at  his  own  risk,  the  s'  datioii  I'overs  not 
only  the  transit  on  tlie  liiu>  of  railway,  but  also  all  risks  includi'd  in  get- 
ting; access  to  and  deparlnre  from  the  railway;  all  that  tal^es  place  wliile 
111-  is  a  i);is^enj;,'r.  (;,illiii  v.  F.on  loii&e.  U.('o..I..  \l.  HX^.  B. -JlJ.iCent. 
L..J.  217  O'*'''/"').  '"What  woidd  hav<'  been  the  liability  of  the  company  to  an 
ordinary  passen^^jjery  \  person  who  invites  another  to  come  on  his 
premises  is  lioiind  to  tak(  reasonable  care  not  to  exjiose  snch  person  to 
Miidiie  danger.  That  is  the  im;)lied  engagement  of  a  railway  comi)any 
in  the  <a-e  of  an  ordinary  i)assenger.  Whether  if  the  plaintiff  had 
been  a  passenger  traveling  under  no  particular  arrangement,  tlie  com- 
pany would  have  been  liable,  it  is  not  necessary  to  say.  JJiiL  here  tlic 
company  have  stiinilated  that  the  plaintiff  sliotdd  travel  at  his  own  risk. 
\  iw  that.  I  think,  means  that  the  company  were  to  be  free,  not  only  of 
ail  risks  arising  from  the  ai'ts  of  tli'Mr  own  servants,  but  of  all  risks  in- 
cidi'utal  to  the  journey,  not  ncnly  during  llie  actual  transition,  but 
li"lore  and  after  it.  till  the  whole  transaction  was  ccnniileted."  Per 
Bl  ickbin-n.  .1.  See  a\m^  post.  Cap.  VIM.  "Load  and  Uidoad,'"  "On  the 
Train." 

-.Indson  V.  Western  II.  Co.,  (5  Allen,  -IS.")  (IStilJ);  .Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Hale,  (i  Mich.2i:{  (IS.V.)). 

■*'  11  )wley  V.  Ilorne.  W  Bing.  2  (182.")) ;  and   see  (Jibbon  v.  Paynton,  4 
Burr.  22!)S  (17t!'.)). 


m 


w 


M 


*  iiH" 


p 

I 


ill 


100 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  CAKIUKKS. 


[CH, IV. 


notice  of  ii  liiuitalion  of  liability,  it  -was  shown  that  lie  Iiail 
taken  for  three  years  a  newspaper  in  which  1  he  notice  had 
been  advertised  once  a  week.  The  jnry  having'  nevertheless 
found  a  verdict  a<rainst  the  carrier,  the  Court  of  Coniinon 
Pleas  refused  a  new  trial  on  the  around  that  it  could  not  \w 
presumed  that  a.  perso.i  read  all  the  contents  of  any  news- 
paper he  niiiilil  chai'ce  to  take.'"  in  Arr"-  '-.  //o//,''^  the 
defendant  sought  to  limit  his  liability  iiy  pi'ovin«;  a  notice  to 
thateflci't,  which  lie  had  iiisert(>d  in  the  (!(i:jltc  and  the 
Tliticx  newspapers.  Lord  Kl.l.r.M'.oUKrcii,  while  receivini:; 
evidence  of  tiie  notice  in  the  (t:t.:('ff(\  thouiiht  it  of  littler 
avail  unless  it  was  jti-oved  that  tl;e  parly  was  in  the  habit  of 
readinjr  that  paper.  Tlie  ad\(  rtiNciiicnt  in  the  '/'////f-.s  he  re- 
fuseil  to  admit  witliout  jjroof  that  it  was  taken  in  liy  the 
plaintiff.  The  tirst  instance  he  said  in  which  such  evidences 
was  receiv(>(l  was  wiiere  a  per.-on  inserted  a  notice  in  a  pro- 
vincial Sunday  paper  and  the  coint  hchi  that  it  was  admissi- 
ble in  evidence,  bccjuise  it  was  ])i()bal)!e  that  the  pai'ty  had 
seen  it,  since  he  took  the  paper  and  the  advertisenient 
related  to  his  business.  In  the  case  at  bar  it  subsc(iuently 
appearinji' that  the  plaintiff  had  occasionally  read  the  'J'i'dhs, 
the  advertisenient  contained  in  it  was  allowed  to  be  read. 
In  a  ease  in  our  own  courts  it  was  said  :  *'  'i'he  mere  publi- 
cation of  a  notice  in  one  or  more  newspapers,  no  matter 
how  lonir  the  time,  of  an  intention  not  to  be  responsible  for 
particular  articles,  unless  upon  disclosure  of  contents  and 
value,  is  not  sufJieient  to  release  the  carrier  from  responsi- 
bilitv.  The  notice  must  be  brouirht  liome  to  the  shii)per  or 
depositor.  The  circumstance  of  its  beiiiii-  published  in  sev- 
eral newspapers  is  one  fact  ;  that  the  paity  was  a  reirular 
subscriber  to  and  reader  of  one  or  more!  of  those,  papers  is 

"Lord  Ellcuborough  in  Minin  v.  JJakor.  2  Stiuk.  2."),")  (1S17).  llion;;lit 
tliat  ii  person  ini},'lit,  1)0  oxpccti'd  to  look  into  the  il<i::cttc  for  not  lies  of 
disRolntion  of  piirtnorships, hut  not  for  notices  liy  ciiniers  of  the  limita- 
tions of  their  responsibility.  'I'herebeinf;^  no  ofllciul  newspiiper  like  tho 
Gazette  in  this  ('oiintry.  the  distinction  is  not  iipplioahle  here. 

«1  Stiirk.  18C  (181()). 


cir.  IV.] 


NOTICKH  AND  TIIKUl  KKFKCT. 


101 


iiiiotlicr  Iniporliiut  fat't." '*"  Kvcii  in  this  day  it  wojikl  bo 
(lillicult  to  provo  knowlotlj^o  of  a  notice  from  piiMicalioii  in 
a  newspajxT  in  tiicsc  cases.  Notices  of  this  chiss  are  not 
like  notices  of  judicial  proceedinj^'s  and  similar  matters 
uliich  l»y  statnle  are  valid  hv  puhiication.  Ke('ou;ni//m;i; 
(his,  they  have  In'cn  ahandoiied  hy  common  carriers  almo.st 
entin'ly. 

§  !)!>.  /'osfin;/  Xn(icrs — /*/(i((ii'(fs. — Notices  contained  in 
placards,  (hoiiLrh  more  common,  havir  hardly  fared  Ixstler  in 
(he  courts,  in  one  of  the  eai'ly  Knjilish  eases'""  in  order  to 
affect  (he  plaindff  \vl(h  kno\vleil;j;e  of  a  notice!  limit in;>'  the 
<:irrier's  lial)ili(y,  i(  was  proved  thsit  it  was  painted  on 
a  hoard  and  hum:  np  in  the  defendant',-,  otlice.  The  |)lain- 
tiff's  servant  (estilied  tiiaL  I;;'  '.i.e!  laken  jjoods  to  the  ofKco, 
had  frei|uen(ly  heen  thei'c  hefoic,  and  had  seen  the  hoard, 
hut  (ha(  he  did  not  suppose  ('.ere  was  anythinjr  upon  it; 
(ha(  allhouu'.i  he  could  read,  he  had  never  in  fac(  reatl  the 
n()(ice  mitil  after  (he  loss.  Lord  Ki.i,i;\i',()Kor(iii  said: 
"Vou  camiot  miike  (his  n()(ic(!  (o  (  his  non-su|)posini^  person  ; 
i(  is  dillicuH  (o  strui^^Ie  wi(h  (he  common  law;  and  it  is 
incunilxMd  on  a  person  wlo  wishes  to  I'id  himself  of  his  re- 
sp()nsil)ili(y  a(  connnon  la  ,  (o  uive  ei"fec(ual  nodce."'"  So 
(li((  c()n(en(s  of  a  pl;i'':t!'('i  ai'e  ineff(!clual  where  (he  par(y 
soui^lU  (o  he  chacL'cd  is  'nial)le  to  read.'-  In  (he  h'adinuj 
Amei'ican  case  of  /fn/l/sfcr  r.  sYowli'u,''^  evidence  (lia(  a  no- 
(ic('  was  conspicuously  placarded  in  moM  of  (he  s(a<];(M)Hices 
of  (he  route,  and  particularly  where  (he  plaintiff  had  re- 
sided for  (hree  years  immedia(ely  precediuiT  the  loss  of  the 
ti'uuk,   which  was  iUc  cans(>  of  ac(ion,   was  not   consiiU'red 


,'wl 


•'■'  IJiilitwin  V.  Collina.  !)  KdIi.  lOS  (tsir>). 

'■"  Knr  V.  Willaii,  (I  M.  ."c  S.  ITiO;  ■>  Stark,  ni!  (1SJ7). 

"'  '"'I'lic  incrcly  |)iilliiiu;  up  !i  Itnard  in  iln-ir  otlice  ouj^iil  not  to  satisfy  ;i 
jury."'  IJcst.  < '.  .J.,  ill  Hroolvo  V.  I*iflv\vicl<,  4  IJiii^.  21S  (1S.")7);  Draysnn 
V.  Iloiiic.  27  W.  H.  7:);'..  ;!•->  (..  T.,  N.  S.  C.Dl ;  (Jlayloii  v.  Hunt,  •JCainp.  17 
(isll):  Uii'.lcr  V.  ilcaiic, '2  (^amp.  4t:)  (IStO). 

"-'Davis  V.  Willaii, 'J  .StaiU.  •_»7!)  (1S17);  note  to  Siuitli  v.  llonu;,  Holt 
V,U,  (ISIT). 

<»  1!)  Woiid.  2;U  Cts:>S).     See  iilso  Cole  v.  Goodwin,   Id.  'i.')!  (1S3S). 


>:i..is:mmm^ 


102 


THK  C;ONTI{ACT8  OF  CARUIKH8. 


[CII.  IV. 


sufficient   to   authorize   a  jury  to  infer  knoAvIedjre  in  the 
phiintiff  of  the  terms  on  wiiicli  the  eonclies  were  run. 

A  i)!issen<>er  by  boat  is  not  bound  l)y  written  or  printed 
notices,  posted  in  tlie  i)oat  in  conspicuous  places,  statiuir  tiie 
carrier's  reuuhitions  as  to  the  delivery  of  baiiirairc,'''  In 
Mackliii  r.  Xeiv  Jersey  Steamboat  Conipaiii/,''"  a  notice? 
containinir  these  words :  "IJaufiiairi' n(*i  aUowcil  in  culiin  oi- 
state-rooms.  Tiiis  company  will  not  be  liable  for  bajijiaiic 
unless  checked,"  was  posted  up  in  ditT<>rent  i)arts  of  the 
boat.  The  jjlainliff  took  his  satchel  to  his  slatc-rooni, 
where  it  was  stolen.  lie  testilied  llirt  he  did  not  see  llu; 
notice.  Daly.  .[.,  said:  ''Notices  may  lie  (Miiploved  Iiy  tlu; 
carriers  as  a  means  of  bringiuir  to  the  pasMMip'r's  knowledi^e 
any  reasonable  rejrulation  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  from  tliis 
that  it  is  obliijatorv  ujxni  him  to  read  all  sucli  notii cs  ;  for 
if  we  were  to  hold  that,  we  would  have  to  hold  that  whether 
he  read  them  or  not,  it  beinu'  oblij^atory  upon  him  to  icad 
them,  he  would  i)e  charficabie  with  a  knowledjic  of  theli- 
contents;  and  this  is  further  than  the  law  lias  ever 
gone."  In  Walkcv  v.  Jarh.'^on,^''  a  notice;  at  the  door  of  a 
ferry  where  foot  passengers  entered  was  rejeeled  wImmi 
offered  in  a  case  where  the  plaintiff  had  entered  by  the  car- 
riage way.  Where  a  })asseiiger  had  been  in  the  habit  of  go- 
ing on  a  train  and  there  paying  her  fare,  a  new  rule  [)osled 
in  the  otiice  was  held  not  to  l)e  sutlicient  notice  to  her.'" 
Where  there  was  i)osted  up  in  a  railroad  car  notices  limiting 
the  company's  liability  for  passengers  baggage  and  as  to 
smoking  in  the  cars,  standing  on  the  platforms,  ;uhI  putting 
lioads  and  arms  out  of  the  windows,  and  the  plaintiff,  a 
passenger  in  the  car,  admitted  that  he  had  read  the  notiei; 
as  to  smoking  and  standing  on  the  platform,  it  was  held  that 
there  was  no  presumption  that  he  had  seen  the  notice  as  to 

«M:u'kliii  V.  Xcw  .T('i«cy  StCiiniboat  Co.,  7  Abb.  Pr.  (\.  S.)  l»2!)  (l)-(iS) ; 
GlPiison  V.  Goodiicli  Trans,  (^o.,  ;V1  Wis,  85  (1S7:{).  .Sec,  how(!V(M\ 
■\Vhitesoll  V.  Craiu'.  S  W.  &  S.  :?(!',)  (184')). 

«7  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  22!)  (18G!;). 

«10M.  &  W.  101  (1842). 

"Lake  Shore  &c.  II.  Co.  v.  (Jreenwood,  79  Pa.  St.  \\T,\  (187r)). 


u 


m 


f  II.  I  v.] 


NOTICKS  AM)  TIIEIU  Kl  FKCT. 


103 


hiijrga^c 


,'*  In  ii  Coiiiiccticut  rase,  dressed  poultry,  puckctd 
ill  ice,  wiis  shipped  on  l>o:ird  a  sleaiiihoat  for  New  York. 
It  appeared  tliu*  llie  carrier  liad  sniueliiiujs,  when  provcnlcd 
from  sailiii;^'  at  (lie  appointed  time,  sent  such  peiishulile 
freight  by  nJIroad.  'Ihv  boat  was  detained  by  fog,  and  tlio 
poultry  injured  l)y  the  detention  owing  to  the  melting  of  tlio 
ice,  no  attention  being  paid  to  it.  'Ihe  carrier  signed  a  re- 
ceipt which  slated  the  contents  of  the  boxes  shipiKul  ;  but  ho 
did  not  ob-.erve  what  thesi'  lioxes  of  poultry  contained,  or  ho 
would  have  s(!nt  them  bv  rail.  'I'he  carrier  had  for  a  long 
time  advertised  ami  posted  a  notice;  on  his  boat  that  poultry 
Wi's  at  tin;  owner's  risk.  i)ut  the  plaintiff  had  no  knowledge 
of  it.      The  carrier  was  held  liable."' 

§  I(»().  T/ic  Csc  i>f  N'rditts  liis<,rl('d  to — 77/f;  /'Jiiglish 
''('(im'i'/s  ^lif." — The  niifrii'iidliiiess  of  the  courts  to 
notices  by  advert isemeiit  and  |)lacards  having  Ik.'coiiio  inuni- 
fest,  the  carrier  must  needs  have  recourse  to  other  niounu. 
In  1<S2.S  Chief  .Justice  IJkst  suggestcil  tliat  if  carriers  would 
but  deliver  to  their  customers  at  the  time  of  re'".;iviiig  llieir 
goods  written  memoranda  of  tlie  terms  on  which  they 
would  (arr\,the  vexed  (|Uestion  of  notices  would  Ik;  ended.™ 
The  same  ojiinion  had  bei-ii  expressed  by  tin;  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  in  I.S2."),"'  and  by  Lord  Ki,m;m50U()U(jh  in 
b*>17,'-  who  said  that  in  this  way  the  dilliculty  of  "proving 
kn()wledg(  of  the  notice  wou'd  l»e  removed,  Haylky,  J., 
adding,  that  if  a  carrier  never  .;)ok  "i  a  parcel  without  a 
re(a'ipt  he  would  be  ii)''.'iiiiiihed,  Carrii-rs  wore  not 
slow  in  acting  upon  these  sugiicstions,  and  eitlu'r  a  bill  of 
lading,  a  receijit,  a  elieck  or  other  written  or  printed 
voucher,  has  come  to  bi-  used  by  them  almost  without  ex- 
ception in  every  contract  at  the   present  day."''     In   Knglaud 

«^  Miili.iic  V.  Hostoii  &.V.  II.  Co.,  VI  fJriiy.  ;iss  (IS.".!)). 
«»Pcck  V.  Weeks,  :il  ("onii.  1 C)  (IS(J7). 
'"  Uilcy  V.  Iloriif,  T)  lV\w^.  '217.  ■>  M.  &  I'.  XU  (1S2S). 
"  liowlcy  V.  Horiic,  :$  Hiii„'.  2  (1S25). 
'■^  Kerr  v.  Williiii,  (I  M.  tt  S.  150.  'J  Stark.  .->:{  (1817). 
"Shelton  v.  Moreliiiiits  Dispateli  To..  :{(5  X.  Y.  (Sup.  Ct.)  527  (1873), 
s.c.  iV.lN.  Y.  2.J8  (1874). 


w' 


;y|    !■  'itf 


iiiiiwmi — 


104 


TIU-;  COXTlJACT.s  OK  CAUIUKKS. 


[CII. 


■'       J: 


by  tho  Hiiiluto  11  (ico.  4,  1  Wni.  4,  v..  )i8,  §    1,  cullrd  tlu! 
Carrier's  Ad,  It  is  jjrovidcd  that  no  luail-contriictor,  stnirc- 
coiioli  i)r()i)riot()r,  or  other  cominon  c.'U'i'icr  hy  IuikI  foi-  hiif. 
shall   1)0  liable!  for  tlic   loss   of  oi-  injury  to  any  ai'ticic  or 
property  of  the  followinjx  desci-iplion,  vi/.  :    (Jold  or  silver 
coin  of  the  realm  or  of  any  foi'ei^n  state;  ^''old  or  silver  in 
a  inanufac^tured  or  unnianufaetured  state  ;  precious  stones, 
jevrelry,  watches,  clocks,  or  a.  y  time-pieces  of  any  descrip- 
tion ;  trinkets,   hills,   notes   of  any  hank  in   KuLrhind,  Scot- 
land or  Ireland  ;  orders,  notes,  or  securities  for  payment  of 
money;  Enjrlish  or  forci,L'n   stamps;  maps,  writinirs,  title- 
deeds,   paintings,  en;i'ravinirs,  pictures,  <;old  or  silver  plate 
or  plated  artich's  ;  j^lass,  china,  silks  in  a  manufactured  or 
unmanufactm-ed  slate,  and  whether  wrouuht  up  or  not  with 
other  materials;  furs,  lace,   or  any  of  them;  <onlained   in 
any  i)iircel  or  package  delivered  either  to  he  cai-ried  for  hire 
or  to  a(;company  the  person  of  any  passenger,  if  the  value 
cxecicd  £10,  unless,  at,  the  time  of  the  delivery,  value  and 
nature  ho,  dcM-lared,  and   an  increased  <hargc  or  engag<'ment 
to  pay  th(!  sauK!  he  accepted.     Hy  §  2,  the  rate  of  such  in- 
creased charge  is   to  he  notilicd   l»y  a  ])ul)lic   notic(\  allixcd 
in  legihh;  chaiMclers  in  some  conspicuous    part  of  theotiice, 
warehouse  or  receiving  house,  which   shall  hind   the  parti<'s 
sending  without  farther  proof  of  its   having  come  to  their 
knowhulgi!.     By  §  .">,  cari'ieis   are   to   give,  if   re(|iiired,  re- 
ceipts for  packages,  acknowledging  the  same  lo  l)e  insured  : 
and  if  not  given  when  i'e(piii'ed,  or  the  notice  ho  not  allixed, 
they  are    not    to   have   the  henefit    of  the   a<'t.      By  §   1,  no 
notice  shall    limit  or  in   anywise  affect  the    lial)ililyat    com- 
mon  law  of  carriers,  in    respect   of  any  articles  to  l)c   con- 
veyed hy  them,  unless  such   as   are  mentioned    in    the   act, 
and  to  which   it  extends.     By  §  (i,  nothing  in  the  act  is  to 
extend  or   he  consti-ued   to  annul  or   in  anywise   affect  any 
special    (contract    between    parti(!s    for    tin;    conveyance!    of 
goods.     By  §  S,  nothing  is  to  be  deemcid  to  pi'olect  carriers 
from  liability  to  answer   for  loss  or  injury  arising  from  the 
felonious  acts  of  servants,  nor  to  protect  servants  from  lia- 


CH.  IV.] 


NOTICES  AND  Tllinu  IJFFECT. 


105 


l)ilitv  for  loss  or  injury  ofcasioiicd  by  their  own  personal 
n('<;lc'i't  or  iniseonduct.  The  provisions  of  thix  stututc  have 
not  l)C(>n  M(lopt('(l  in  any  of  the  Stales,  and  the  various  de- 
eisloMs  which  have  been  made  under  it  are  for  the  most 
p:irt  not  applicalile  herr,  and  are  thei'cfoi'e  not  ijiven. 

§  101.  Xofirrs  Otili/  J'roj)iis<i/s  for  Confnfcf.s, — Inland 
hills  of  ladintr,  reeeijjts,  tickets,  cheeks  and  other  written 
or  printed  vouchers  containing  notices  liniitinj;  their  liabili- 
ties while  really  adopte*!  by  connnon  carriers  to  enable  them 
to  evade  their  responsibilities  have,  on  account  of  the  stand 
taken  by  the  courts  in  this  country  in  opposition  to  these 
attempts,  but  little  \irtuc  at  the  present  day,  and  servo 
only  as  inducements  to  enter  mto  special  contracts,  or  to 
speak  lore  plainly,  as  decoys  to  entraj)  the  unwary.  For 
it  has  been  seen  that  with  th(  exce])tion  of  that  class  of 
notices  which  is  desi<>ned  to  insure  uood  faith  on  the  part  of 
the  l)ailor  in  the  transaction,  the  American  doctrine  does  not 
allow  the  cari-ier  to  limit  his  liability,  either  as  a  bailee  or 
as  an  insurer,  by  anythiuir  short  of  a  contract,  express  or 
implied.  A  notice  can  not  be  made  to  Iiind  the  customer 
simply  from  the  fact  that  il  was  broujiht  to  his  knowledge. 
^1  Hii/icc  is  oii/i/  (I  projutsdl  for  a  cniitrucf ;  il  must  therefore 
l»e  also  shown  that  it  was  adopted  as  the  contract  between 
the  pai'ties.''  Unl  as  not;  e  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  and 
assent  thereto  on  the  i)art  of  the  shipper  are  e(piivaleiit  to  an 
cxi)ress  contract,'"  the  (lUestinn  as  lo  what  is  sutHcient  evi- 

••'■  I5c:iii  V.  Crccii.  Vl  Me.  \11  (isit:.):  SMijor  v.  I'drt-iiiuiitli  &.r.  ]J.  Co.. 
;tl  Me. 'JJs  (i.s.-.i)  :  FiUiOnowii  v.Cnind  'I'niiiU  1{.  Co..  ."i.".  Mf.  AiVl  (IsOT;; 
I.ittlc  \.  I'.osioii  \i'.  J{.  <'()..  till  Me.  -j;',',!  (1S7(;) :  Mohilc  ^ic.  J{.  Co.  v. 
WfiiKM'.  I't  Mis~.  ;•_>.")  (l-vri):  \Vi'st('ni  'rninsporlatiou  Co.  v.  Ninvhall,  "Jt 
111.  Kir.  (ls(;(M:  I'.luincntliiil  v.  UriiiiHTil.  lis  Vt.  102  (lS(i('.>  :  Kimball  v. 
Jtiitliiiul.  \i'.  Iv.  Co.  'Jil  \'t.  -JIT  (IS.Vli :  I'anncrs  iVc.  Biiuk  v.  Cliniiiplain 
'J"r.iii>.  Co..  IS  Vt.  liil  fistf;).  .V.  v..  •>:,  Vt.  lS(i  (is.")!);  Munn  v.  Blivlianl, 
II)  Vt.  ;!2(;  (1S(17) :  Mc\lillim  v.  Mk'lii-:m  i<;:o.  11.  Co.,  IG  Mich.  711  (ls(J7). 
riiMlf  uotk'c  jrivcii  liy  a  carritT  that  he  will  not  hi'  rcspoii^ibli?  for 
ficijllit.  or  that  it  ^^ill  ho  at  tlio  risk  of  tlic  owner,  will  not  vary  the  car- 
rier's liability.  Derwort  v.  Loonier.  21  Conn.  2-1.')  (is.M) ;  Dorr  v.  \(>\v 
•Jersey  Steam  Xav.  Co..  11  X.  Y.  485  (18.")t) ;  Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co..  15  Conn.  W,',\)  (ISC}) ;  nntl  see  cases  cited  <intf,  Cap.  II. 

'«  Kelk)y;•,^  J.,  in  Bkimenthal  v.  Brainerd,  158  Vt.   ii)2  (1800). 


i4 


1 11 


\li\ 


IOC. 


Tin;  CONTKACrS  DF  fAKKIIClCS. 


[ClI.   IV. 


(IciH'o  of  iis.Hout  Ix'i'oim's  ail  iiiiportaiil  oiif,  ainl  unc  upon 
which  tlicrc  has  lii'i'ii  much  dilTcrciicc  of  u|tiiii(m  in  th« 
courls.  The  ai'iriinicnt  wliich  is  riniiid  in  a  niinilici'  of  ca.M's 
that  after  a  cairici-  has  ^ivcii  notice  tiial  lie  will  accept 
••■(tods  oiilv  oil  cortaiii  «'oii(litioiis,  uiiich  notice  has  liceii 
hroiii^ht  to  tlio  kiiowlcdjro  of  the  custoincr,  the  latter,  by 
afterwards  de!iveriii<>-  his  properly  to  him,  must  he  uiid«'r- 
stood  as  ajrreeinjj:  that  it  shall  he  carrii'd  aceordiii;r 
to  lli(!  terms  of  the  notice,  would  he  conclusive,  pro- 
vided the  law  permitted  the  carrier  to  iiisi.^l  on  the  terms 
of  his  notice,  and  to  refuse  employment  on  any  other 
condition.  Nor  is  the  fact  that  the  shipper  has  seen  tlit; 
notiee,  anv  ju'oof  that  that  In-  accepts  its  conditions," 
It  \vould  certainly  \h'  iroiiiij:  too  far  to  presume  any 
willinjiness  at  all  on  his  part  to  rcliev*'  the  carrier  from 
anv  [)()rtioii  of  thosi>  duties  cast  upon  him  hy  the  law  of 
the  land,  such  an  idea  l)ei:-  entirely  irreconcihihle  with 
the  natural  siijracity  of  men,  and  their  univi-rsal  desire 
to  enter  into  those  harj::ains  alone  which  shall  most  hen- 
elit  them.  "  ("oni'cilini;  that  then'  may  he  a  special  con- 
tract for  a  rest ri.  ted  lial>ility."  says  Iiijonsmn,  ,I.,  in  a 
leadinii'  American  case,''  "such  a  contract  can  not,  I  think, 
he  inferred  from  a  •.'cneral  notice  iirouiiht  home  to  the  em- 
ployer. The  arij^uinent  u  that  wln're  a  party  delivers  ^oods 
to  bo  earried  after  seeinii-  a  notice  that  the  carrier  intends  to 
limit  his  responsibility,  his  assent  to  the  terms  of  the 
notice  may  i)e  implii  1.  lint  this  ai'irumeiit  entirely  over- 
looks a  very  important  eonsid(>ration.  Notwithstandinjr  the- 
notice,  the  owner  has  a  ri:rht  to  insist  that  the  carrier  shall 
receive  the  goods  subject  to  all  the  resl)ollsibiliti^^s  incident 

'"It  issottlcd  tliat  ;ii^'Mit  is  not  lU'ccssiiiily  to  toix'  infi-ncd  from  tlic  men' 
fiict  lii;it  liiiowloitjjc  of  siu:li  notice  on  liu^  pai'l  of  an  owner  or  coiiT-ij^nor 
of  f!;oo(|s  is  sliown.  The  ovitlenee  must  «jo  fartlicr  and  \w  siilllcicnt  to 
fliow  tiiai  tlic  terms  on  wiiicli  tlm  carriiM' i)ro|ios(Ml  to  carry  tlie  ;L!;oods 
were  adopted  as  tlic  conlraet  I.etween  llie  partie-*  aci-ordini;  to  wliicli  llie 
service  of  tlie  carrier  was  to  tie  rcnilored."'  liuclxland  v.  Adams  Kx.  Co., 
07  Masfs.  121  (1S07) ;  Moses  v.  Ronton  &c.  U.  Co..  21  N.  II.  71  (IS.'.l). 

"•lloliister  v.  \owlcu,  19  Wend.  234  (ISiJ.S;. 


■ 


(11.   IV.] 


NOT  I  (KM  AM)  Tin;  IK  KITIM  T. 


107 


lo  Ills  cuiploviiiciit .  If  tlic  delivery  of  the  iidods  under 
siieli  eiremiislaiiees  iiiilli(»ri/e>  iiii  im|ilieiili<iii  of  any  kinti, 
the  proiiniption  is  as  .-troni:',  to  say  the  h';i-.|,  liiat  iUr 
owner  intended  to  insist  on  his  |ei;al  ri;:hts,  as  it  is  that  h(5 
was  wilhnir  to  yiehl  to  the  wislies  (if  the  caiM'ier.  If  a  coat 
he  ordered  from  a  luechanie  after  he  has  iiiven  the  enslonier 
n<itiee  tiial  lie  will  not  furnish  the  article  at  a  h'ss  |)ric(!  than 
one  linn(h'e(l  (hdhirs,  the  assent  of  the  eiislonier  to  pay  that, 
sum,  ihouii'h  it  '»«'  donlde  the  value,  may  perhaps  he  im- 
plied ;  hut  if  the  mechanie  had  l)een  under  a  leH-al  ohlif.'"a- 
lion  not  only  to  furnish  the  eoat,  hut  to  do  s(»  at  a  reasona- 
lije  piice,  no  such  implication  could  arise.  Now  the  carrier 
is  under  a  leL'id  ol»rn:ation  to  receive  and  convey  the  jjoods 
safely,  oi'  answer  i'oi'the  loss.  lie  has  no  )-i;j;|it  to  preserilx? 
any  other  teinis  ;  and  a  notice  can  at  the  most  only 
amount  to  a  prop(»-al  for  a  s|)ecial  contiact,  whicii  i('(|uires 
the  as>en«  of  the  other  party.  I'utlinir  the  matter  in  tho 
most  favoralde  liuiht  for  the  carriei',  the  mere  di'livcry  of 
;;o()ds  after  seeing'  a  notice,  can  not  warrant  a  stronpr 
presumption  that  tiie  owner  intended  to  assent  to  a  re- 
stricted iia!)ilily  on  the  part  of  the  cairier,  than  it  does  that 
he  intendtd  to  \\\A>1  on  the  liahilities  imposed  hy  law;  and 
a  special  contract  can  not  he  in!|)lied  where  there  is  such 
an  cipiipoise  of  prol)al)ilities." 

§    lOl'.     .I.SX'///    /'Vo///     Aci''  /ifilHf     l*tlJ>C)\'<    ('())l/llillilll/    Coii- 

frarf. — Most  of  the  courts  hold  that  anythinj:'  inserted  in  a 
hill  of  hidiiii:-  hecomes  a  part  of  the  contract  hetween  thc^ 
parties  (if  not  illeiial ).  if  accepted  hy  the  shipper  without 
dissent  on  his  ]iarl  to  its  terms.  'i"he  hill  of  ladini:"  is  conclu- 
sive evidence  of  the  contrac-t  and  its  acceptance  is  sullicient 
evid«*ncc  of  assent  to  its  terms.''  In  tiie  ahsence  of  fraud  it 
is  presumed  that  tln^  shipper  r(!ads  the  hill  of  ladinir,  for  it  is 


"9 Steele  V.  To\vn-ien(i.:!7  Al:i.  *JI7  (ISdl) :  Taylor  v.  Little  Koel;.  &r.  U. 
Co..:i2  Arl<.  :'.'.»;(  if  77;:  Lake  v.  Ilmd,  ;{.S  Coiiii.  ."jliC  (1S7I);  I,ii\vreiic(? 
V.  Now  Yorli  ite.  U.  Co..  :i(!  Conn.  G;{  (lW!!t):  Miilli,i,'un  v.  lllinoin 
Cent.  I{.  Co.,  :{li  IdWii.  1S0(1S7;!);  Hol)ins(in  v.  Meitli:uit<  Dispaldi 
Trans.  Co..  «.">  Ii.wa.  •«7()  (1877) ;  The  Kniily  v.  Carney. ')  Kas.  01.")  (1S(U) ; 


?- 


•  •_  '•rff'TP^^^^^B'^ . 


w^ 


i\ 


f  , 


It; 


m 


4 


108 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAUUIERS. 


[CII.   IV. 


his  duty  to  do  so.'*"  "IViils  of  hidiiiir,"  suys  Coolkv,  J.,  ''arc 
si«nied  1)V  tlu'  ciUTior  only;  and  wIkm-c  ;i  contract  is  to  ho 
si'i-ned  o;\\y  bv  one  'larty,  the  evidence  of  assent  to  its 
Veruis  I)V  tJje  other  party  "onsists  usually  in  his  rcceivin<r 
and  actinir  ujjon  il.  Tiiis  is  tlie  case  with  cU'cds  poll,  ;mi<I 
with  various  classes  of  familiar  contracts,  and  the  evidence  of 
assent  derived  from  the  aceci)tanee  of  the  coiilract  without 
objection,  is  commonly  (oncliisive.  !  do  not  perceive  that 
bills  of  ladinii'  stand  upon  any  different  footinir.  If  the 
carrier  should  cause  liinitations  on  his  linbility  to  be  in- 
,sert"d  in  the  contract  in  such  a  mannt-r  as  not  to  attract  the 
eonsiirnor's  attention,  the  (piestion  of  assent  niiii'ht  fairly  be 
(•onsideretl  an  open  oi.e  ;  and  if  the  dcli\('ry  of  the  bill  of 
ladini":  was  made  to  the  consinnor  uiuler  such  ;  ii'cunistanccs 
as  to  lead  him  to  suppose  it  to  be  somethinir  else,  ;is,  foi' 
instance,  a  nu're  receipt  for  nu)ney,  it  could  not  be  held 
bindinii"  on  him  as  a  contriu-t.  inasmuch  as  it  had  never  been 
di'livered  to  and  acccptcti  by  him  !is  such.  But  except  in 
these  and  similar  cases,  it  can  not  become  a  material  <picstion 
^\•hetllcr  the  consiunor  read  the  bill  of  lading  or  not"  ■■' 
This   class    of  instrumenls   is,  as   h:is   been   said,  of  almost 

]^Ic("(iy  V.  l':ri<'  \c.  'i'laii-.  ('<>..  !J  Md.  I!is  (is;,-));  Mnijlicc  v.  CmiikIcii 
A-c.  I{.  Co..  I.'«  N.  Y.  .".11  (\-^:\):  Vn\  v.  ItMlxdi'K.  I  (Hii<..:i:;i  (isj:)); 
("iiiciniiiili.  Sir.  li.  (■(..  V.  I'DiUiii-.  Ill  OIi'kp  Si.  u'-.M  (l^^il',),;  I,i\\- 
ri'iicc  V.  .Mr(;rc,u'"r.  Wright  l!):5  (ls;t:»~)  ;  Ailiiiii--  liNpic-- (  n.  v.  Sli:ir|i|c>», 
77  I'll.  Si.  .MCi  (is;.",;.  Colion  v.  Clivihmil  Ai.  II.  Co..  (;7  I';i.  Si.  211 
(IS7a):  l';inili:iiii  v.  Ciuiiili'ii  Ac.  {{.  ( 'o.  .">."i  I'a.  St  .'i,!  (1'^ii7).  Wlictli.tr 
!i  cImii-c  ill  11  liill  ol  l.iiiiii.j  ('\i'rii;>liir^' a  lai'iicr  liiiiii  liability  for  lo-s  liy 
(ire  lit'rimics  a  (•(iiitiact  liy  iiiiTi'  ai'i'i'|)iaiii'c,  was  iliiiihtcd  in  'I'lic  Sultana 
V.  ( 'lia|uiiaii.  ."i  \Vi~.  |."i|  ( Is.'ii;  I.  ami  al-o  in  j-'ahcy  \.  Noiilicrii  'I'laiis- 
jiorlatioii  Co..  1.")  \Vi<.  liii  (ISCJ!.  wIht,'  it  i~  >aiil  liiat  >ii(li  a  ircciiit 
would  not  liiiid  the  owner  if  lii'  li:,u  •i.'vrr  .'-ecu  il  and  liail  not  i'\|n<'--ly 
nssciitt'd  to  il.  Ill  Di'troit  \c.  I!.  Co.  v.  i"aiiini'>  JJank.  -.Ml  \Vi>.  IJ7 
(lS(i.")),  the  latter  ca^c  i>  exiilaiiu'd  1>\  savin,;  that  it  did  nol  a|>|ii'ar  thai 
the  hill  of  ladiiii:;  had  ever  lieeii  (h'ii\cred.  Uiit  it  is  now  settled  in  thi-i 
(Slate  ihat  aeeeplanee  is  evideiiee  jtiimn  finic  of  assent.  IJooriiiaii  v. 
Anierieaii  Kx.  (Jo.  21  Wis.  l.->2  (iMJii);  Stiohii  v.  OiiiMit  \e.  K.  Co.  21 
Wis.  .■).-)!  (lS(i7). 

""Grace  v.  .Vlanis  HID  Mass.  r.i).-.  (l.SOS);  Iloadley  v.  .\orllionj  Trans. 
Co.,  11. "i  .Mass.  ;i()l  (ls71). 

«  McMillan  v.  .Miehi;,MM  U.  Co.,  10  .Mich.  7i*  (H'w). 


CII,   IV.] 


NOTICES  AND  TIIEIU  EFFECT. 


lOf) 


universal  use,  und  on  acconnt  of  their  iinit'orni  I'hanictcr 
tlio  ru]«'  is  almost  umvcrsally  «'stal)lisliod  that  persons  re- 
cfivinii"  I  hem  are  Itound  to  know  that  thev  contain  llie  terms 
on  wliieh  liieir  j)roi)erly  is  to  he  eaivi'^d.''^  They,  therefore,, 
become  the  eontract  hetween  tli(^  parties,  and  can  not,  a.s  a 
ji'eneral  riile,  he  varied,  or  {'ontradieted  l)y  parol."' 

The  same  view  is  taken  l)y  many  (oinls  of  the  ease  of 
expi'ess  I'eeeipts.'  In  h' 1  rhid ml  i\  />//(.s///or'','' the  i)lainliff 
(lelivei'cd  to  an  expri'ss  eomiJany  a  paeUaiic  of  money  to  h(^ 
transport e<l,  and  received  a  n-ceipt  eontaininiLi'  a  printed  con- 
dition that  tlu'  eonii)any  wonid  not  he  li.ihje  for  loss  "occa- 
sioned hy  i!m'  dimp-r.-^  (d'  raili'oad  tran^poi  lation,  oi'  ocean 
or  river  na\  iu'alion,  oi'  h\  lire  or  >team."  'I'lie  packau'c  was 
lost  i»y  the  iu'cidenlal  linrnini:"  and  .  inkinLi'of  a  vessel  at  sea. 
\\'hen  he  tiiok  (lie  I'eccipt  the  plaiiilitT  supposed  il  was  a 
naked  i(ccipt  :  <li<l  not  know  it  was  a  conir:  '  t,  ar.d  did  not 
nadihe  coi  ditioiis  or  a.-sent  t(<  them.  Tne  Court  of  Ap- 
peals of  New  Voik  reversing'  the  jud<:nicnt  of  the  JSupreme 
Court,  held  that  the  conditions  were  hindiiiLT  <>n  the  shipper. 
Andkkws.  .1.,  Miid  :  ••lie  [the  ownci]  can  not  escape  from 
the  l<'rnis  (d'  a  contra<1,  in  the  aliscnce  of  fiaud  or  imposi- 
tion, hecausi-  he  ne^Tii^'cnlly  oniitte<l  to  read  it,  and  when 
the  other  pariy  has  a  ri^ht  to  infer  his  a^.-cnt,  he  will  ho 
|)recluded  from  d«'nyinir  it  to  the  other's  injury.  ''ho 
plaintiff  is,  we  think,  in  t!i:it  position.  The  contract  was 
one  which  the  parties  miirht  lav\  fully  make.  The  defendant 
hail   a  riiiht    to  inft-r  fiom   the   j>lainfiff's  aceeptunee  of  tho 

"•■'  Klossc.iii  V.  Duiltl.  i:}  X.  Y.  2(it  (1X70; ;  W-Piiiwo^;  v.  Krie  ]{.  Co.,  i;i 
N.  Y.  \i;\  (INTO). 

'•'(  iiiriiiiiati  Ac.  J{.  Ce.  v.  ronlius.  10  Ofilo  %t.  IIX  riSOO) :  Wliito  v. 
Van  Kirk.  L'.".  Harb.  1()(IN."H!);  Wolfe  v.  M>.'is.  IJ  Saii<Jf.  7  (ISHi);  ami 
sec  frntlicr  I'list  ('liap.  V. 

^^  llniiiiiiL,'Ioii  V.  Din-moic.  (!  'I'lioiiip.  &  ('.  l!!."),  s.  r.  4  IIuii.OG  (187.">); 
nrclmii'  V.  Adams  Kx.  Co.  2")  Mil.  li'JS  (]S(i(>);  compart'  N'cwlM'rucr  v. 
Kxprcss  <'i)..  ()  riiiia.  174  (iscit) ;  Ohvoll  v.  Adams  Kxpross  Co.  (Tcmii.) 
1  Cent.  1..  ,].  ISC  (IS71) ;  Christciisou  v.  AiiHMican  Express  Co.,  1.")  Minn. 
270  0!^'") ;  ."^nider  v.  Adams  Kxi)ress  Co..  (i;i  Mo..  ;<7(i,  4  Ont.  L.  J.  17'.> 
(ls7ti);  Somnet  v.  National  Express  Co..  (UJ  IJaib.  2S4  (lS7:t). 

«  02  N.  Y.  171  (1>>7.")),  reversing,',  a.  c.  4  Thonip.  &  C.  :{04  (1874). 


no 


THE  CONTKACTS  OK  CAnRlICRR. 


rcil.   IV. 


receipt  wilhout  cli.ssont,  tlinl  lio  assented  to  its  terms,  and 
now  after  a  loss  has  oeeurred,  it  is  too  late  lo  olijeet  that  he 
is  not  l)ound.  If  he  had  ol)jeeted  at  the  lime,  the  (U'fend- 
juit  would  have  been  entitled  to  exaet,  as  a  condition  of  car- 
rvinj:  the  pan-el,  a  compensation  equivalent  to  the  I'isk  of 
insurers.  The  circumstances  imposed  upon  the  plaintiff  the 
duty  to  read  the  receipt."  The  court  distinuuish  this  case 
from  that  of  lilnKsotn  v.  Ihxhl,^'  which  was  .i  passenuer's 
ticket,  witii  a  notice  as  to  the  lialiilily  of  the  carrier  for 
bairiraiic. 

§  103.  Other  Cases  .Slittiriiiij  AssoiHo  Terms  of  jS'ofices. 
— In  the  following  case<  assent  was  presumed  l>y  the  court  : 
Where  a  railrctad  company. sent  nolii-e  to  a  merchant  that  it 
would  in  future  carry  liis  ooods  on  certain  conditions,  and 
he  afterwards  delivered  tliem  to  the  company  without  rais- 
ing any  ohjeclion  to  the  notici'.^'  ^^'hel•c  izooils,  having  ar- 
rived at  their  destination,  the  carrier  gave  notice  lo  the 
consignee  that,  if  not  rrmoved,  he  would  hold  them,  not  as 
a  coinmon  carrier,  liut  as  a  \\ai-elion>enian.  at  lii>  ri-k.  and 
.••uhject  to  the  usual  uai'eliousc  cliaigc -.  and  '.lie  M',n>i-  I'ailc  I 
io  remove-  iheni.^^  Where,  in  a  hill  of  !  ulin'j  i- uitaininij' 
the  words  "wiiidi  are  to  lie  d(  livcicd  at  nctroil."  the 
freight  agcp-t  in->  rteil  in  red  ink  ix-tween  ''at"  and  "I)c- 
troit"  the  words  •' 'J'nudo  foi'.""  ::n<l  imnicdialeh'  foi- 
warded  the  gooils.  an*!  sent  hack  the  hill  of  lading,  hut  the 
goods  were  lost  hy  lire  at  Detroit,  and  the  shipper  tailed  to 
dissent  within  :;  r»-usonal»lc  time."  Where  Idank  receipts 
were  left  hy  the  carrier  with  the  «u>tcinier  for  daily  use, 
and  were  tilled  up  !«y  his  clerk.'  Where  it  was  the  usual 
<'ourse  of  husiness  for  a  diipper  of  goods  t<t  send  his  l»oxe>. 


^"■Ili  N.  V.  liCI  (lS7(t). 
■  Walker  V.  York  Sir.  K.  Cn..  l  Kl.  cS:  HI.  7.'0  (is.vti. 

••''Milclifll  V.  Laiicasliin-  iVc  I{.  Co..  I..  U.  1^  ij.  II.  -j.-.c,  (IST.")), 

>^  Miillcr  V.  Ciiiciniiiiti.  iVc.K.  ("o..  2  (in.  2so  fis'-j). 

»'(»ii)son  V.  .\iiicriiMii  i^c.  K\|iiv<.i  (',,..  i  Umi.iis;  (|S7l):aiiil  sen  Op- 
pciiliciniiT  V.  I'liiteil  StiUos  K\|irc-«  Co..  (iii  111.  i',2  '|S7:!  ;  Kiic  i;. 
Co.  V.  Wilcox.  S4  III.  2:i9  (1870) ;  li-lil  v.  Cliicapo  \c.  IH\  71  111.  ITiS 
(1S71);  MiMrhaiits  Dispaldi  i<:c.  C...  v.  M'")n'.  s>.  m.  i:;(;  ,is;-,. 


€H.  IV.] 


NOTICES  AM)  THEIR  EEFECT. 


Ill 


&c,,  to  a  carrier  I)v  a  teamster,  and  for  the  earner  to  deliv- 
er to  the  teamster  a  l»ill  of  ladinir  for  each  shipment,  whieh 
hill  was  in  a  form  coiitaininir  an  exeei)tion  of  loss  l)v  lire, 
and  ^vas  liroiiLrht  I)V  the  teamster  to  the  shii)])er  and  re- 
tained."' \Vli«'re  a  shipper  and  owner  of  noods,  at  the  time 
of  deliverini;  tl  -ame  to  an  e.\))ress  company  for  trans|)ort- 
ation,  also  deli  ered  to  the  expi'ess  company  for  their 
siiriiatiire  a  blank  receipt,  liUcd  up  liy  him  at  his  ollice,  con- 
taininiT  the  nanus  of  hoth  parties,  and  a  seiies  of  condi- 
tions and  clauses  r(\irulalin;Li'  the  manner  of  transportation 
and  the  lisihility  of  the  express  lompany  in  ceilain  cases 
and  contingencies,  and  such  receipt  at  the  time  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  merchandise  was  pres(>nted  by  the  shipper  to 
the  cxjjress  company  for  tiicii'  >i<rnature,  and  was  si<rned  by 
tlie  latter  and  icturned  to  the  shipper. '■'"-  Where  plaintiff  had 
been  in  the  liabit  of  doinu;  business  with  the  carrier,  and 
iiad  been  furnisheil  by  him  with  a  l)ook  of  its  blank  re- 
ii'ipts.  from  which  the  icccipl  for  the  uoods,  valued  at  more 
liian  $."»(•,  iiad  l)ccn  tai<eM  and  <ent  to  defendant  to  sio-n 
wiicn  (Iclixcrnl  :  tiie  rcc  ipl  '■outlined  ;i  stipulation  that  the 
carriers  li;iliiliiv  foi'  lo-  or  dania'.'('  should  not  excet'd  $.')(), 
unless   lh(    1 1  ue   xnhe-  ill   be  stated    in   the   r<'ceipt.      A 

lilank  left  in  the  receipt  for  the  value  was  not  iilled,  and  it 
appeai'c(l  that  neitliei*  defendant  nor  its  aireut  win)  received 
and  receipted  for  the  package,  knew  that  the  \alue  of  the 
iiood-"  exceeded  $.'►•>. 

§     1(1  I.     ]\'/t(ff     \'i/     Siijfi'iriif     f'Jrii/riiri-    t,f    ^Issiilf.  lu 

Illinois  it  is  lu-ld  tliat  from  the  nicie  acceptance  of  a  bill 
of  ladiuii',  or  receipt,  which  con.tains  <'onditions  restrictiuiT 
the  carrier's  liabililv  n(»  pre>uniplion  of  ass(>nt  to  its  terms 
can  aiise.-''  nor  fr(un  ll»«'  p'.'e\iiMi     reci'ipt    without    objection 

'•''Van  SrIiiiacK  v.  Noniikt-ni  Trans.  Co..  :t  Biss.  ;;'.il  (ls7'2):  ('(unpan' 
.\(lani~  K\|iii-- <  11.  V.  Si.'HaniTs.  ()l  111.  ISI  (1S71). 

"■;  FalUTi:iii  V.  Faru'".  I'  ll<'W-  l*i--  •'''^'>-  ••*•  ''•  •^'>  N-  V.  (Snp.  <'t.), 
•X\'2  flHT-.M. 

i':i  Wc^iroit  V.  Far<i(t,(i;i  IJarl).  IMd.  .v.  <■..  {',  I,ans. :!!!)  nS7i>) ;  ulliriiicd.  01 
N.  Y.  .VCJ  (1*17-). 

•^  Adams  Krjiivs.;  Co.  V.  Stcttaners.  <;i  ill.  1S|  (1S71) ;  .Adams  Kxpirss 


m 


m: -il 


\wu 


112 


THE  CONTHACTS  OF  CAURIEUS. 


[CII.  IV. 


of  similar  papers  cDntainiiiir  similar  fomlitions."'"  In  a 
Massachusetts  case  cvidi'iicc  that  ficqueiitly,  hut  not  invari- 
ahlv,  the  c-arricr  had  uivcn  to  the  i)laintitr  receipts  eontain- 
inix  a  printed  clause  limitiiiii"  his  li:il>ility  lor  <i'<'<>ds  trans- 
ported !>v  him.  and  that,  in  this  instance,  after  recciviuiX  the 
iXoods,  he  irave  to  a  servant  of  the  plaintiff  a  receipt  there- 
for, eoiitaininir-  >uch  a  pi'inted  clause:  hut  that  over  part  of 
this  clause  in  this  receipt  a  revenue  stamp  was  so  pjisted  as 
to  render  it  unintelliiii'ilc,  and  that  until  aftei-  the  io-^s  nei- 
ther ihc  plaiatitT  nor  any  of  hi>  aLi'cnIs  or  M'rvanI-  had  ac- 
tual Unowledi:-c  of  such  a  clau.-c  in  this  or  any  of  the 
other  reccii)ts,  was  li.-ld  noi  sufiicicnt  to  warrant  a  iindin<r 
that  the  plaintiff  luid  asseiiTcd  to  any  limitation  of  the  de- 
feiulam's  lialiility."'  Proof  that  tlu-  >liip|)er  paid  for  the 
transportation  at  :i  tariff  of  cliarLi'«'s  uiulei'  uhicii  li_\  the 
carrier's  printed  lal)le  cd"  rales,  the  latter  assumed  no  rc- 
sponsih'lity  for  ci-tain  losses,  i>  not  suliicient   evidence  that 


Co.  V.  ILiync^.  12  111.  SI*  ISOi!):  ilo-Uowitz  v.  Ailams  Kxpns-;  Co..  ."» 
Out.  L.  .t.'iS  (ls77i:  .Viii-iit.r  Liiii- v.  Dati-r.  C.s  111.  ;!(;!(  (Is;;!);  Am.i\;c. 
Exi)n's>  ('<!.  v.  SrhiiT.  .V.  111.  ll(MlS7u,:  Krici^c.  'I'lans.  Co.  v.  DattM'.  S 
Cent.  I..  J. 'J!';;  (IsT'.i);  li>— kowltz  v.  Adaiiia*  Kxiucx  Co.. '.i  (int.  L.  .1. 
;5Sii  n^"I'  •  'I'l"*  opinion  has  been  ticpn's^fil  l»y  this  coinl  that  w  licrc  tin- 
recpipt  coiiiain-  unfair  :inil  oppn-.-ivf  liinilalions.  if  any  ])i'('siMnpti>>ii 
at  all  i»  ti'  !>»'  in<liil;^t'il  in.  ilu-  I'ra-oiialdc  one  wmilil  (M-rlainly  !»'  that  Ihc 
condition*  wcri'  not  aci'cpli'd.  "It  will  he  ol)-cr\cd."  says  Walker.  C.  .1., 
in  Adams  llxpic*-;  ( 'o.  v.  llaync-.  siiprn.  ••that  Ihc  rcicipi  upon  which  this 
suit  is  hroiiiihi  contains  provisions  which  were  (ie-ii,nicd  i<i  rellc\e  plain- 
tiffs in  error  from  almost  every  >|)ecics  of  responsiliility.  Il  is  irnc  that 
it  leaves  them  liahle  for  fraud  and  for  (jross  neijli^jence.  lint  even  then 
only  to  ihe  extenl  (if  8'iO.  Wc  ai-0  at  a  lo-s  to  eonjccinie  how  a  sane  man 
coidd  he  induced  to  receive  such  an  ii^recment  KnowinLT  its  eontenls.  If 
he  luidorstood  its  terms  and  <onditions.  he  knew  ihat  he  was  liceiisin^j 
the  company  or  any  of  its  nnnierons  ai;c'iits  or  employees  to  appropriate 
all  of  the  properly  thns  intinsted  to  their  <  .nc  tiy  jiayinj^  him  the  smn  of 
9r>0.  And  it  appears  that  he  paid  an  eii;||t||  of  that  .sum  nominally  for 
transpori.il ion  .if  tle^  property,  hnl  it  looks  more  like  a  premium  for 
violatin;;;  their  trust.  No  person  can  he  surprised  that  .S.MItt  wurth  of 
property,  intrusted  to  them  under  siu  h  a  receipt,  never  reached  its  des- 
tination, hut  it  would  have  heeii  sinj;nlar  if  it  had." 

••"Erie  A;e.  Transpr.rtalion  Co.  v.  Daler.  S  Cent.  L.  .1.  I'Xi  (1879). 

« Perry  v.  Thompson.  08  Mass.  24!)  (18(57). 


Hl 


CM.    IV.] 


NOTK'EK  AM)  Til  Kilt   KKFKCT. 


113 


the  tcrin.^  were  known  t(t  the  sliipix'i"  aiul  that  he  assented  to 
tlu-ni.'' 

§  10.").  .Vofit's  Allitihcil  ti)  I'dpcvx  Coiifahihiff  Con/rncf. 
— When  we  come  to  notices  attached  to  reccii'/ts  or  l)ills 
of  ladinir,  or  printed  on  theii-  l»ack,  tliere  is  less  difliculty, 
as  most  of  the  <'ouits  have  made  a  distinction  hetween 
this  class,  and  conditions  containt-d  in  an<l  tiierefore  a  part 
of  l)ills  of  ladin'_%  coiitiMcIs  or  other  i"i'ceij)ts."'*  It  is 
said  in  Illinois  that  thei'e  is  no  difference  hetween  pni)- 
lic  notices  hv  advcrlisenient  or  placard,  aiul  notices  printed 
nil  Ihi'  Inii-k  of  a  receipt ,''^'  and  so  far  as  assent  to  theii' terms 
is  sonirht  to  l»e  infi-rred  from  (heii-  acceptance,  the  hitter  are 
e(|Uallv  impotent .  In  linlliinnl  ( 'imiiHnii/  r.  MiniitJ'<i</iir- 
1)11/  ( 'iiiiipinii/,^'"  decided  hy  the  Supreme  Court  of  >lie 
Tnitcd  States  in  1S72,  a  receipt  <.;iven  hy  a  railroad  coniiiany 
referred  to  certain  rules  and  reirnlations  of  the  comi):iny, 
"a  part  of  which  notice  is  uivcn  on  the  hack  Iiercof."  ( )n 
the  hack  were  prinle<|  cci'lain  conditions  reslrictinu"  the 
coimnon  law  lial)ility  of  I  he  company.  The  receipt  \v;'.s 
taken  l»v  thi^  consii:nor  wllhout  either  assent  or  dissent.  It 
was  iield  that  the  notice  was  not  operatixc  to  I'elieve  the 
companw  "The  coiiNideralions  ai^ainst  the  I'elaxation  of 
the  common  law  i'e>pon-iliility  I»y  puMic  adveiMisemeiil ,"' 
said  Mr.  .Instice  Davis,  "apply  wilh  eijiial  force  t(»  notices 
havin::-  the  same  oltject,  altached  to  receipts  <riven  hy  carri- 
ei"s  on  l.ikinjj:  the  propeity  of  those  who  «'mploy  them  into 
llieir  |»o>-essI()n  for  tra:e^poi'tation.  Holhare  attempts  tf) 
o!);aiu  hy  indireclion  e\emplio;i  from  hurdens  imposel  in 
the  inicre>ls  of  irnde  upon  this  particular  husiness.  It  is 
iiol  o!ilv  against  the  policy  of  llie  law.  hui    a  serious  iiijui-v 


m 


.'Sat 


;:k<! 


"■  !$:illii V  \,'.  \l.  (\..  V.  |{;':i  ly.  :ij  M.|.  It;!!!  (iSO'.t). 

'•''  Newell  V.  Siiiilli.  I'.i  Vt.  -J.'m  (I>77). 

!■!' \V(-t.Tii  Iriiii-.  (  .>.  V.  N.'wliiiil.  -Jl  III.  Hill  ilsdoi.  Mm  ill  llliiini- 
iiiitjcr  llw  l:itc  (l('ri>iiiii-  till'  (li.-lliiciiiiii  hi'iwciii  iiiljs  of  l.'KJiiii,' iiii.l  I'c- 
rcipl-  M  kci- jiinl  clinlx-.  is  imt  pre  t'rM'if.  Sec  I'jie  Ae.  'i"i';ill>^|iiillili(Fn 
«'o.  V.  i»:M>  r.  s  ( ',.|il.  I,.  .1.  2'.i:'.  (1,S7'.>). 

>"  K;  \V:iII.  ;lls. 


mr 


I  ]  1  riiK  (<)xti;a(Ts  <^r  cai;i;ik!:s.  lch.  iv. 

to  I'ommci'cc,  (()  allow  llu-  carriiT  to  -"aytiiat  a  sliipjicr  of 
nui'chaiulisc  asscnl-.  to  (lie  tiiaiis  pi-oposcd  in  a  i!oti(  «■  win  ih- 
(•!•  it  Ix'  licncral  to  llic  pul»lir  or  special  to  a  iMVli'Milar  |)ci'- 
soi),  incrcly  liccatisc  li<'  doc^  not  expressly  di-x-^it  IV(»ii! 
tlicni.  If  the  jiai'tics  wi'i'c  op.  an  (M|iial:ty  with  ca;'!!  otiici-, 
tlicrc  miii'lit  ill'  soiii"  show  of  I'cason  for  a--iiiiiiit;i"  ac(|uii's- 
(•••iicc  ffoiii  silence,  liut  in  the  )ia!n''e  ol'  thi-  velalion  eijiial- 
it\' (h)es  no!  e.\i>t,  and,  therefore,  (\cry  inlei;('i!ieni  slionid 
lie  made  in  favor  of  the  shipper  wh.'n  he  lak  's  a  i-eeeipl  for 
hi-  property  with  rotrictive  condiiion;-  annexed  and  sa.ys 
noihinii",  that  he  intends  to  rely  upon  the  law  foi'tiie  .^cc^lr- 
it\'  of  his  i'iLi'ht>.  It  can  readily  he  seen  if  llie  carrier  can 
rcdiiee  his  Iial)ility  in  the  mode  proposed,  he  can  1ran>acl 
hn-iiiu'ss  on  any  terms  he  clioo c-  to  pre-i'rilie.  The  >hip- 
pi'i",  a>  a  "i'eneral  tliint:".  is  not  in  a  condition  to  coiitend  wilii 
him  as  to  terms,  nor  to  wail  the  re  i;'i  of  an  aciidn  at  law 
in  ease  of  refusal  to  carry  niicoii<lilionally.  Inde<'d,  such 
an  action  is  seldom  roorted  to  on  acconnt  of  the  inaliilit\ 
of  the  shipper  to  delay  sen<linii'  his  t:(iod>  forward.  Tiie 
la'>v,  in  concedini;'  to  cai'riei'-  the  aliilily  to  o'>tain  anv  ri'a^- 
oniole  (|Ualilieation  of  theii"  re-ponsihiliiy  liv  ex|.rc--  con- 
tr.iet,  has  <>-()ne  as  far  in  tin- direction  a-  pnlilic  polic\'  will 
a.ll  iw.  To  relax  still  further  the  >ti'lil  rules  of  imnmon 
law  appliealile  to  them,  hy  pi'c.-uininLi'  ac(|uie>cence  in  the 
conditions  on  which  they  propose  to  carry  freiiiiit  when  they 
have  no  riii'ht  to  impos(>  them,  wouhl,  in  our  opinioti,  woi-h 
li'.'eat  harm  to  li'.e  i>u-ine>s  community."  Thi-  ruiiii::'  h  i> 
liceii  more  re<'eiitly  followed  I»y  \\'ai,i..\<i:.  .1.,  i'l  m  <;iv,.  jn 
the  Tnited  Stales  Circuit  Court  al  New  ^'oi'k.  in  wi:i^!i  it  i-. 
said:  "That  tlii>  conclusion  c(]i.ilici>  w  iih  many  dci-i-ions  (d 
hi..'.i  authoi'ity  in  tin-  country  ar.d  Kn^il.and  nui-l  I'c  con- 
coded;  l»ut  the  ca--e  f(n'ni~-hes  a  rule  of  plain  ami  certain 
.MpplieatioM.  and  sweeps  Mu.'.y  many  line  and  a"i!i"cial  di.-- 
tin"tio:!s,  ',\  iiich  ha\'e  in\ol\-e(|  ;i;  <  onfu^ion  ih"  whole  doc- 
tri  le  .if  n.olices  a.ml  ■pcci;,!  contracts  as  ai'lectiuL;'  tiie  rii:hl- 
aii'i  liaoilili"  of  cotnmon  c;!rriers.  .'^onie  of  ihe-e  case- 
li!'.v<    tu'M-l    upoi!    th"    jjoin;    whellier   the    conditiit'i-;    In    ;i 


m 


CM.   IV.] 


NOTICKS  AM)  TIIKIR  KITKCT. 


11.') 


priiiti'cl  rcci'ipt  were  in  siiiiill  type  or  in  laruc,  oi'  wlictlicr 
(lie  rcccipl  was  laki'ii  dclilxM'ali'ly  or  Imi'iirdly,  wliilc  one 
case  in  tin-  codrt  of  last  ri'sorl  in  lliis  Slate  places  coiilrol- 
I'mu'  cinpliasis  upon  the  fa<'l  that  llic  receipt  was  taken  \>\ 
the  shipper  in  a  dimly  liuhled  ear,  and  holds  that  it  was, 
Ihei'et'ore,  not  a  contract.'"'  Another  casein  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  same  Slate  holds  the  I'cceipt  a  contract  al- 
tlionijfh  taken  hy  a  foreiirner  iirnorant  of  the  laniiuaire  in 
which  it  was  |)rinted  and  to  whom  net  explanation  of  its 
terms  was  vouchsafed,'"-  Thus,  while  one  man  is  al>solve(l 
from  ol)Hj:ation  hecause  it  may  he  inconvenient  for  him  to 
inform  himself  of  the  terms  of  the  proposed  contract, 
another  is  held.  The  theory,  of  course,  is  that  assent  to 
the  i)ropo>ed  eontra<'l  is  (»r  is  not  implied  from  the  circum- 
stances of  the  transaction,  hut  the  cases  illustrate  the  utter 
uncertaintv  of  tlie  test  of  assent,  when  one  man  who  is  i<>-- 
noi'ant  <d'  the  lanuuai:*' of  the  i)roposed  contract  is  presumed 
to  assent,  while  anothei'  is  absolved  Itecause,  from  the  type 
in  which  it  is  pi'inted  or  the  \'\'^\\\  hy  which  he  is  to  read  it, 
he  can  not  ac(|uaint  himself  with  the  terms  without  more  or 
le^s  inconvenience.  The  rule  held  l»y  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  I'nited  .Stuics  is  capa!)le  of  certain  and  easy  application, 
and,  if  adhered  to,  will  lto  fai' I  >  aliropite  a  class  of  con- 
tracts to  which,  pi'actically,  the  carrier  is  tlu'  only  party."  '"' 
In  a  Michipin  case,  tlu'  notici'  of  exceptions  was  printed 
on  the  hack  of  tlm  receipt  uiven  for  the  u'oods,  and 
the  reci'ipt  on  its  face  referivd  to  the  exceptions.  "vSomc 
<'vi(lence  of  assent  to  the  terms  of  the  notice,"  it   was  said, 

"  Itlo^som  V.  Dixi.l.  i;!  N.  Y.  -Jill  (ls7i)). 

'"-Filtt'l  v.  I/iviiiiT-'ti'ii.  (il  IJail).  17a  (ls72):  Wiwhiis  v.  Bowery .Saviiii^- 
Uk..  21  \.  Y.  :.i:i  (IsC.O). 

'  'Ayrcs  V.  Wf-icni  i{.  Co..  II  P.hitclif.  !l  (1S7<!).  "It  is  imi  iiiifinl.Ml 
til  hr  (li't'idi'd  tiiul  iIh'  ii|i|M';ir;ni('c  on  tlic  liiil  of  ladiiii;  of  tin' wriltcii 
wiiiiis:  -Siilijci't  to  lilt'  coiiiliiioiis  of  iin>  coiiipMiiy.' \v;is  sucli  notice  of 
tlie  contents  of  iuiy  paper  cnniuininii  so  ealled  ■conditions  of  the  com- 
pany," as  to  liind  the  pai'ly  wiio  acceided  the  hill  of  lading'  lo  a  slale- 
nient  in  sueii  conditions  liniilin;;  what  would  otherwise  he  the  liahility  of 
the  vessel  on  the  terms  of  the  hill  of  ladinjj."  The  Isahella,  s  Ben.  i;{!) 
(ls7.-.). 


'A 


1, 

L     ..»^ 

iirt 


TlIK  CONTKACTS  OK  CARKIKRS. 


[ril.   IV. 


"is  noc'ossarv,  from  which  a  contracl  may  \>v  implied.  In 
such  case  if  it  is  soujrht  to  he  inferred  from  the  acceptance  of 
a  receipt  spi-cifvini:'  a  limitation  of  liahility,  or  referring'  to 
an  acc()mpanyin<„'  notice  for  such  limitation  ;  or  if  it  is 
souifhl  to  he  inferred  from  previous  notice  and  dealinir^  ;  if 
it  appear  that  the  price  of  freiirhl  was  made  lowei- in  consid- 
eration of  such  sjjec'al  i-estriction,  and  the  party  has  received 
the  hcnetit  of  such  reduction  of  freijiht,  such  or  similar 
facts  mijj:hl ,  and  undotititcdly  would,  furnisli  stronjj:  eviih'uce 
of  assent.  Hut  if  in  a  case  otherwise  similar,  nosut-h  diffei- 
ence  in  the  price  of  freiiiiit  was  made,  or  if  the  party  had 
paid  or  a<rreed  to  pay  the  hi<rher  rate,  or  the  pi'ice  uniform- 
iv  demanded  accoi'dinu"  to  the  tariff  of  the  company  in  all 
cases,  or  if  no  optional  tariff  of  |>rices  of  which  the  foi-- 
wardinii'  party  may  avail  iiiinself  is  shown  to  exist,  little  or 
no  inference  of  assent  to  such  >pccial  terms  can  i>e  drawn 
without  ailowinu'  the  company  in  effect  to  limit  their  liabil- 
ity l»y  a  mere  notice.'""" 

§  1()().  lidilroaihntilSlriiiiihiitit  Tickets. — Notices  printe(| 
on  tickets  or  checks  are  within  the  I'uh-  mentioned  in  the  last 
section,  hecause  neither  a  ticket  iioi'  a  check  is  evidence  of 
a  contract.  A  railroad  or  steamboat  ticket  is  nothintf  more 
than  a  mere  voucher  thai  the  party  to  whom  it  is  iriven  and 
in  whose  possession  it  is  has  paid  his  fai'c  and  is  entitled  1(» 
he  carried  a  certain  di>tance.'''  In  a  case  whi<'h  arose  in 
New  Voi'k  in  1N.")S,  it  heiniLr  contended  before  the  Court  (d" 
.Vppeals  that  certain  passage  tickets  were  in  themselves 
written  evidence  of  the  terms  on  which  the  passen<;er  was 
to  be  carried,  and  that  he  was  therefore  |)recluded  fioni 
contradict in<i  them  l»y  pai'ol  evidence,  Dkmo,  d.,  said: 
"We  do  not    think  this  a   sound  position.     The  tickets   do 


i'^.Miclii;r:m  ('ciit.  |{.  Cit.  v.  IImI.m;  Mirh.  -Ji:?  (is.Vi). 

''■■*  Ncviiis  V.  |{;iy  Stale  Sicainticiat  Co.,  I  liosw. -J-jr)  ils.Vi):  |{a\\suii 
V.  I'cimsylviiiiiii  I{.  Co..  4S  N.  Y.  -.'IJ  (ls72);  Hrowii  v.  KiistiTii  1{.  Cn.. 
11  Ciish.  !I7  (is:i:{);  Maloiic  v.  linsloii  &.i\  |{.  Co..  12  Jiray.  :!^s  (Is.V.o; 
tiiiiinhy  v.  Vaiidcibilt.  17  N.  Y.  ;Wi!  (Is.'.sj:  Wilson  v.  Clicsa|ieak(' \.'. 
K.  Co..  -Jl  <;ratt.  (mI  (1s7-J). 


<H.  IV.] 


NOTICKS  AND  TIIKII5  KFKKCT. 


117 


not  purporl  to  Ik'  coiilracts.  Thov  arc  rather  in  the  naliin* 
of  receipts  for  the  separate  portions  of  the  passajijc  money  ; 
and  their  ofHce  is  to  serve  as  tokens  to  enahh"  tlie  pei'sons 
havinjr  diarire  of  the  vessels  and  earriajres  of  the  companies 
to  recoirni/e  the  l>earers  as  parlies  who  were  entitled  to  l)e 
rcceivcti  on  hoaril.  Thev  are  (piite  consistent  with  a  more 
special  harirain.  Hcin^Mhe  nsual  permits  which  were  issued 
for  llic  iriiidancc  of  the  masters  of  tiie  vessels  and  the  con- 
(hictors  of  I  he  carriaires,  thev  would  necessarily  he  <riven  to 
the  passenn«'r  to  facilitate  the  transaction  of  the  husiness 
■whatever  the  nature  of  the  arranirenienl  for  passaLr<'  may  have 
Itcen."  '"'  The  American  cases  ixenerally  snp|)orl  this  view. 
In  /iiir)i/i(i)n  c.  (,'niiitf  Trnnh-  Jtallicai/  Cotupdiii/n^"'  whvvv  a 
l)asseiiirer  receiveil  a  railway  ticket,  on  which  was  ])rinled  a 
stati-ment  "irood  for  this  day  only,"  it  was  held  that  he 
niiirhl  prove  by  parol  that  at  the  lime  thai  1m'  houirht  the 
Tn-ki't  liie  ticket  aircnt  of  the  railway  company  tohl  him  that 
he  could  stoj)  over  for  a  day  at  an  intermediate  station 
liefore  arrivini;  at  the  ilestination  mentioned  in  the  ticket. 
"The  real  contract  lictwcen  the  plaintiff  and  the  ticket 
ajrent  was  made  before  the  ticket  was  seen.  The  i)laintiff 
])aid  his  money  upon  tiic  statement  of  the  ajrent  and  iu)t 
ujion  any  indorsement  upon  the  ticket,  lie  took  the  ticket, 
not  as  exprcssinir  a  contract,  hut  as  proof  of  the  contract 
he  had  already  made  with  the  airent .  He  had  neither  seen 
noi'  assented  to  the  indorsement  nor  was  he  asked  to  assent 
to  it.  As  between  the  plaintiff  and  a,<rent  the  contract  was 
detinite,  wilii  no  mi>understandin;j:  or  suLTiTcstion  of  it." 
In  a  Massachusetts  ease,""  it  was  ruled  that    when^  a  ticket 


/  .If 


"'■  t^iiiiiihy  V.  Viiinlcrliilt.  17  \.  Y.  :50ii  (IS.'iS). 

'"'(!;(  Me. -JOS  (IS7;5). 

i"M{rewn  V.  Kustcrii  K.  ("d.  II  Ciisli.  1I7  (IS.*):?),  juul  st't>  Miiloiic  v. 
IJostoii  iS:c.  U.  Co..  12  (Jmy.  :iSS  (IS.V.i). 

Tiic  following  I'xtnicl  from  tlic  opii.loii  of  the  court  state-;  the  whole 
Ciisc:  '*  Tl:-' liinitiition  ami  notice  tiiiMcof  wcri',  ill  the  present  instance, 
atteiii|>le(l  to  he  estahlislicd  niiiler  these  cireninstances.  The  traveler,  a 
female,  liad  delivored  iier  trunks  to  the  hajrjiaj^e  master  of  the  defend- 
ants to  he  carried  to  freeport.    'i'liey  were  received  hy  him  without  any 


^1 


^:^ 


UN 


TIIK  CONTKACTS  Ol    ( MMMKKS. 


[<II.    IV. 


M 


I 

>l|                 t 

(, 

m    ■ 

1 

i; 

«1': 

is  "ivi'ii  to  a  i)!is«'('nir»'r  f(nitiiiiiiiiir  :i  liinitiilioii  <iii  llic  I'ack 
ill  printed  letters  !(•  the  etTeel  (liiit  llie  <!in  itT  will  iiol  lie 
aii>\vci':il>le  for  Itiiiiiiiiu'e  exc-eediiiLl'  lif'l.v  dolliirs  in  value,  un- 
less additional  frei<:lit  is  paid  on  it,  it  will  lie  a  (lueslion  for 
the  jtirv  whether  llie  passenger  had  notiei-  of  the  e(»nditii)n 
before  eonnneneinir  his  journey. 

iidtiif  of  any  limitaliuii  nf  lialiilliir-  |.  sifr  lraii>|inrtali<iii.  anil  inaikcti 
for  llii'ir  |ii(i|M'r  dc-liiialic'ii,  Siilp-('(|iH'nlly  llu'  nuni-r  aiiplicd  fur  lire 
iia--a;ii'  ticki't  lo  l'"ri'c|iiirl.  and  was  inrurnicd  ili;ii  tlicy  did  nni  -ell 
tickils  1(1  Fi('c|i()i'l.  Iiiil  ilial  >lic  c  nidd  v  oni'  fur  Unniswick.  a  placf 
ii'iniitf,  witli  till-  privilcp'  nf  sloppin^i  (  rt'fpKil.and  liavinyionc  dollar 
ri'finidcd;  and  tliat  tiu'iciipon  -hr  paiii  lliri'c  doiiai's  and  received  a 
ticket  In  Hnin-w irk.  'I'lie  lickei  liad  oil  its  face  ijie  route  and  various 
railroads  to  Ite  passed  over,  and  llie  notice  tlial  one  doHur  wnidd  lie  re- 
funded lo  those  st(ip|iiiiir  at  {''reeidiri .  There  was  mi  notice  on  ihe  face 
of  the  ticket  of  any  eondilions  or  liinitations  as  to  transpurliii;;  llie  lia;;- 
jjajje  <if  passeiifiers.  The  only  notice  as  to  that  was  on  the  hack  -ide  of  the 
ticket.  No  direct  notice  \va«  y:iven  hy  the  ticket  vemlor.  nor  was  any  re- 
ipiest  made  to  her  to  read  the  liinitations  and  ennditions  stated  on  the  liaek 
of  the  ticket.  Ii  \va-  .idiiiiiled  lli  il  there  was  no  actual  or  i  oiisiriuiivc? 
notice  of  the  limilalion  of  the  carriciVs  lialiility  unless  the  same  was  de- 
rived from  the  ticket  received  hy  Ihe  plaintiff,  'i'liis  liein;;  so.  the  ease  was 
in  oil!'  opinion  pioperly  put  to  the  jiirw  lud  ilieir  verdici  for  the  plaimiff 
may  well  he  sustained."  >peakin;r  of  miiice-  printed  uii  railroad  tickets, 
Dewey.  .1..  in  Brown  v.  Kasiern  |{.  Co.,  II  (  iish.  1I7  (1S'.:»).  distiniruishes 
hetweeii  >',icli  as  Mppi'ar  on  '  lie  fucc  and  on  the  hack  of  tickets ;  ••  .\  ii)er<> 
passeii;;er  ticket  in  llie  foiiu  in  ireneral  use  would  not  naturally  indiii  .  lo 
the  minute  readinn'  of  il>  coiiicnis.  The  party  recei\inic  i'  nii:.;lit  well 
suppose  that  il  was  a  mere  check  -ii;uif\  iiiij  that  Ihe  parly  had  paid  his 
jiassai^c  to  the  place  indicaicd  on  hi-  tii'kct.  Hui  if  it  l)e  correct  in  ii.ild 
that  if  this  limitation  li.>d  iiecn  -taled  on  the  face  of  the  ticki'i  ami  in 
conncciion  with  the  name  of  the  place  lo  which  the  party  was  ii>  lie  car- 
ried, and  so  ini:;iil  111  |iresiimcd  to  have  hecn  read  and  llieretorc  hind- 
iiiff  upon  the  person  recciviuj;  llie  ticket :  yei  nevertheless  a  -lateniciii  or 
notice  to  this  effect  ])laced  upon  the  hacl»  of  the  lickei,  and  delacliid 
from  w  hat  ordinarily  loiilain-  ail  Ilia  I  is  material  to  the  pa  sscm^er.  woidc  I 
not  raise  a  le<;al  pn'sumplion  tliat  the  jiarty  at  the  lime  of  n'ceivin;;  lIu' 
ticket,  and  hefore  th"  train  had  left  ihe  sialion.  had  know  leil;i:e  of  the 
iimitation  or  condition-  w  Inch  the  carrier  had  atti'  ImiI  id  the  Iraiisporta- 
lion  of  the  l(au:y:a;;;e  of  the  pa--senj::ers."  In  a  N'  w  York  ease,  the  court 
say:  ••  li  winildlie  iinreasonalile  to  pres'tme  lliai  a  passenjjer  wliei:  h" 
liiiys  a  rail'oad  ticket  at  a  ticket  ollice,  slops  i<i  read  the  l!in;;ua;;c  printed 
on  it.  and  it  would  !»•  e(|iially  unrcasonalilc  to  hold  that  a  passenifer 
must  take  notice  thai  the  lan;;uap-  upon  his  ticket  eontains  any  eontract 
or  in  any  wav  limits  ilie  earner's  common  law  liahilitv .     ♦     *     The  cun- 


>.i 


■:i.  IV.] 


\<»ll<  1>    VM)  THKIK  Kr.  i:(T. 


i:> 


Till'  ra-.'of  notii'i's  liinilliijr  tlu- li:il»ilily  of  rMi'i'ici  s  iiml  i.|)- 
|)i':iriii!Lr  "II  Nfciliilin:'.(  (icN''H  lia-  i cccix cd  lull'  li  a'ut  iilifii;  in 
Ivi'^laii'l  ill  late  casi's  ."iiul  (he  ml;"  which  lia>  lu-cii  at  l('M;:th 
(••.tal>li>iu(i  ill  I'cirai'd  lo  lliis  cl.i'-s  of  voiiflurs  is  foiiiuli'il  on 
fojiimoii  law  |)i'iiiri|)lt'>.  ilic  •statute-  of  that  (■(•iiiitiT  in  rc!a- 
tioii  to  iiulicc^  l»y  idinnioii  fai'iicrs,  sudi  as  the  h'aiiwiiy 
an-l  Canal  Trallic  Ai-l  aliT.uly  rofcncd  to,  liciiiL:'  ir.aii[»li<'ai»l(' 
to  carria;.:'!'  of  this  fhai'a<'tcr.'  ' 

In  Zitn::  >'.  SdiiIIi  hjuslt  ni  Itdihni  ■/  ( '(tmjxnii/,^^"  the 
[ilaiiitirt' lii.ik  athr(iii!:h  ti'.r(  fi'nin  thf  London  station  of 
the  Sonih  lOaslci-n  liailw ay  Company  to  I'ari-.  'I'iic  ticket  was 
in  tlntc  c(»ti|)on> :  I.  Fro n  London  to  Hisci  ;  2.  Ki'oin 
|),(\ci' to  Calai- :  ;'>.  I'loin  Calais  to  Taii-^  I'lMtn  llic  ticket 
ua-.  printed  the  foliowinu'  condition:  "'llie  company  is  not 
i'es|),insioh'  for  los.-.  oi-  dctcntiiHi  of  or  injury  lo  iiiuii'ajre  of 
the  [.assenii'cr  travdiiiir  hy  this  thr(ni<:h  ticket  I'xcept  ulnlo 
tlic  pa--enu'cr  is  traveliiiLr  ''y  the  company's  trains  en' 
l)oats."  His  pitrlinaiile;'.!!  w  is  lo-t  (tn  tlic  joiirmy  hetween 
Calais  and  Pari-.  Co(I\IUI;n,  C.  .!.,  said  :  "The  special 
contract  is  set  out  on  th  ■  face  of  |he  ticket  :  and  howc'\'er 
hiird  ;'  niay  seem  to  hold  that  a  passenM-er  is  l)oimd  Uy  words 
pi'iiited  npo!i  a  tiiket  in  smai!  letters,  and  which,  in  the 
luirrv  of  t!ie  la-'.  nioniciU  at  a  i  .lilway  station,  he  has  no 
op;iortiinil  \'  oi'  making'  hiin-cli'  ai'ijuain'ed  with,  there  is  no 
doubt  tiial  .;  Ill-  l»ce!i  sci'led  l>y  decidt'd  authorities  that  he 
must  lu'  pi''-;ni  'd  i  >  know  the  contents  of  the  ticket  and  to 
lie  I)ound  l>\  >!!' h  coii.cnts."      None  of  the  "decided  aiitlior- 

inicl  n.'twi'i'ii  ihc'-i-  pMiiii'-;  w;i-  iiia'l"  '.vlicii  tin'  |pi:iiiuift  Ixniirli!  Iii-r 
lii'k"!  and  lilt'  I'inlil-;  :pmI  iIiiTk  -  nf  ilic  parlies  wiic  tlieii  (Iriciiniiifd. 
IIi'ui'<'.  even  ii  ill"  plaiiullf  liaii  n-ii'l  whiit  i;pp<'ars  iuhim  Iht  licl^i'i  al'icr 
•-111  '  '1  cull  It  (1  iipiiii  I.,  r  jiiiiriiiv  .  il  U'  iilil  liaxc  iiiaile  im  dil'lViTiicc 
\/nli  lii-r  ii;j:lii-.  Silt-  \\a>  iin;  thru  nlili'^cil  :i>  <iil)iiiit  li>  a  cinUracI  wliii-h 
>li('  iic\"'r  III  iij,'  or  l^MNc  tilt'  train  anil  "Itiiuiutl  Iht  l)a<;7;;ii;i'."  IJawsim  v. 
l*fnii->  Ivania  I.'.  <  11..  I"^  \.Y.-J1-J  (IsTJ'.  Hni  -ff  I.a'uii;  v.  Culiifr.  S 
I'a.  >i.  1711  (I-Im:  15t'tl,'ii,iii  v.  '^linii^f.  ".  IJaulf.  17'.)  (,ls:iri):  (.'ani'l"ii 
.';:f.  Tran-;.  <'t..  v.  Haltlawi.  1(1  l*a.  SI.  CT  ;;-.M). 

'■■'■'  Atil' .  I  'ap.  II..   si't'.  27. 

"I.  j{.  !  (^>.  Ji.  .");{'.»  OMiili) :  and -t'c  I'a'.iiii'r  v.  ( ;;;i;iil  .iimctiDn  |{.  ( •!).. 
I  M.  *v  W.  7!!i    l-.l'.i). 


V 


% 


'.  !! 


'  J 


; 


120 


TIIK  fOXTIUfTS  or  CAIMMKI.'S. 


[ni.  IV. 


\\\vs"  arc   <it»M|   In    the   cliiff  jiislicc,  itii<l   a^  a   sul>st'(|in'iil 
jii(i"'('  has  <<.\|)r('ss(>(l   liinisclf  a>i  wlinllv  uiialilc  to  tiiiil  lln'iii. 
the  aiitli<>ril\  of  this  case   is  vi'iT  tlnulill'iil.      Uiil    ihc   (h'.-i- 
sioii  (if  ino-t  iiilcrt'sl    in  this   ((iiiiH'rlinn.  aiwl  oin'  ii-riaiii  In 
remain  as  hiiiii  aiiliioril y,  alike  mi  acroiiiil  nf  the  lliitroiiirii 
(lixiission    wliitli    it    rerfivcd.  ami    (tftlic   ••liai'ii'-li'i- of   the 
triliunni  in  wliirh   it  was  linally  (Icliiniincfl,  is  thai  of  //m- 
i/rr-i')ii    r.    SffffiiS'iii,'^^   (h-cidcfl    ity    the    |'j)i:li--li    Mnii-r  of 
Lords  in  1X7.').     'riic  phiintilT  piirrhax  d  at  tin-  drlfii.lant  "> 
ollic"   in    Dnitlin  a  titlvtl    I'.ir  liis   |ia^'-air<'    from    DuMin    In 
Whitehaven    <in    one    of    the    derendi.nt'.-    >teamer'.     'j'iii.- 
<ieki't  iiad  on  tln'  faee  these  n<ird<  only,  "Dnlilin  to  White- 
ii.iM'n."     'I'lier*'  wa-   no  ndeienee  on   (he  fmnt    to  the  hack 
of   the  ticket.      On  tile  liaek  of   the    ticket    \va>  the   follnwinir 
imhirsement  :      "'I'his  tii-ket    is  issued  on   t  he  condition  that 
the  companv  inciii"  no  liahility  whatevci-   in    rc-pcct  of  lo-s, 
inji!r\'  or  dela\'.  to  tlie  pa^scnu'er,  oi"  to  hi--  or  her  lni;i',iiL:('. 
wliethci'  ari-ini;' from  the  a<'l,  ne<:lect    i>v  dcfnidt  (d'  tiie  com- 
pany or  tlieir  xrvants,  or  otherwise.      Il  i>   ai-^o  issne<l  <iih- 
ject  to  all  the  conditions  and  ai'rantrenient<  piiltlishe(|  hy  the 
<'ompanv."      'I'he   plainliff  did    not     read    the    indoi-enienl , 
nor  was  his  attention  directed  to  it  l»y  anyone.      The  steamer 
was  wrecked  on  the  passaj^;',  (>ntirely  throui!h  the  ne'_diL''ence 
of  the  waptain  and   crew,  and   all  (»f  the    plain'iifi  "••  IiieLraife 
h)st.      He    Itroiiirhl    suit  to    recover    its    \a!nc    in    Scotland, 
and  the   Lord  Oi'dinary   and    the  ("oiirt    of  Sc->ion    haxin;^ 
hoth    deci(h'd    in    his    favor,    the   company    appealed    to  the 
House  of   Lords.      Il  wa>   here  a'/ain    held  that    the  plaintiff 
wa-  not    hound   l>y  the  condition,      "it    seems   to    nie"  >aid 
the  liord  Chancelloi",  "that  it  woidd  lie  extremely  danLreroiis 
not  merely  with  regard  to  eontrait>  <d"  tliis  description,  hut 
Avilh   re^'ard   to  all   <'ontiacts.  if  it    w.-c   to   lie   held    iiial  a 
document   complete    upon    the  face  of    il   eaii    lie  exhiliit ed  as 
hetween   two   contractiniT   parties,  and   without    any    knowl- 
('d;re  of  anythinir  heside,  from   the  mere   circumsiance  t hal 
upon    the   hack   of  that   document    thei'c    is    xtmelhinij'   else 
'"  I..  I{.  '.'Sell.  vV:  Div.  170  fis::.,. 


rii.  IV.") 


NOIICKS  AM>  Tlir.ll.'   KI  TKCT 


121 


priiitcil  wliirli  hii-i  not  iiftuully  Im'cii  hrniiirlil   t(»  ami  hny^  iiol 
<-(»iii(<  111  llic  iiotit-c  of  oiM'  of  the   roiiti-!ii'(iii;r  |iai'tifs,  thill 
colli rart in;;  parly   is  to   he   held   to    have   a>*"*<'iil(Ml    to    that 
wliifli   lie  liMs  not   si't'ii,   of  wliirli   lie  knows   iiotliiiiL:'.  and 
wliirli   is  not    in    any   way   o^icn^ildy  connci'tcii   with    that 
wliitli   is  piinltd   or  wrillm   upon  the  face  of  tlic   contiarl 
pn-scntctl  toliini.      I  ainjrlad  lo  lind  llial  llici'c  is  noaullio?-- 
ilv    for  >ii«li   a   proposition   in   any  of  IIm*   cases   that    iiavt' 
lu>rn  cited."'      liOi-d  ("iii;i,Msroi!i),  said  :    "'lln'   F.ord   Cliicf 
.In-'licc    in    llic    cas(>    of   /Ctm.-:    r.    Si,n//i    Knstirn    linilirinf 
('iiiii/i'iiii/.'^-   wiii<li   lias   liccii    iTfcrrcd   to,  liiou;:lit    liini>cif 
hound  Ity  llic   iiiillioritic-^   lo  hold  that  when   a  man   lakes  a 
lick'>t  with  conditions  printed  on  it.  he  must  he  presumed  lo 
know  the    rontciils  (d'  it    and  niii-l    l»i'   hound   Ity  them.     I 
was  extremely   anxious    to    he    fid'erfcd  to    th<'    authoiilies 
whi'h  inllin-nccd  Ihe  jiidi:niciit  of  the    Lord  Chief  .lustice; 
hill  altlioiiLfh   nuiiierou-  authorities   were  <itcd   Ity  Mr.  Mil- 
waiil,   none  of  tlnin    i;o  the    hiiLdh    of  estal>li--liiii:.;'   tliiil    a 
pr(  >uinprion  <if  :i'«--ciit  is  sullicienl .      .\>scnl    i- a  (juestion  of 
I'videncc,  ami  the  a^^rnl    niu>l  lie    iiiven  hcforc   lh<'  coinplc- 
lioii  of  the    cctntract.     The  ronipany   undertake  to   convey 
pa>'ieni:crs  in  their  M'sscIs  for  a   certain  sum.     'i'he  nnuiieiit 
fhf  nioiir\-  foi'  the  pa<satre  is  paiil    and  iiccepted.  their   ithli- 
•ration   lit  carrv  ;ind   c(tn\ev  arises.      It  does    iiol  rcMiuire  Iho 
exihanire  of  a  \\r\n'\  for  tin'  passage'  money,  the  ticket  heinj; 
onlv  a    vouchei'  that    lie   nioncy   has   heen    paid.     Or    if  a 
ticket    is  lu'ces^ary  to   hind  the   company,  the   ni<tnient  it  is 
dflivered  the  contract   is  eomplct<'d  hefctre  the  passeilL'*'!'  lias 
had  an  opp(triunil\  (tf  rcadiiiir  the  ticket,  much  less  the    in- 
<|orseni(iil ."      Loi'd  1 1.\Tii  MM, V  expressed  the  same  opinion  : 
*'I  airfcc  with  the  oh-erv.alion   that  was   mad«',  hy  my  nohh' 
and  learned  friend,  Lord  ( 'iiki-.msi-()ki>,  that  lli«'  money  liuvinj; 
heen  paid,  and  the  ticket    havinir  heen    taken  up,  a   conlfaet 
was  ((tmpletcd   u)i<tn   the  (ti-dinary  terms   of  cctnveyance  for 
himself  and  his  luL'irauf,  unless  it  can    l»e  made  (tut   that  ho 
had   enlercd  into  any  special    c(tnlract    to  the   contrary.      A 

"•■  I,.  I!.  I  (^  15.  Ml  (isr,!l). 


l.:-2 


TiiK  (<)N'n;.\( 'IS  (»F  (  Ai;i:ii;i;s. 


[(II.   IV. 


d 


ticlxct  is  in  I'fnlily  in  itx'll'  iiotliiiij^"  niorc  tliim  :i  [•(•(•fi|>t    for 
till-  luoiicy  v.liirli  liiis  hct'ii  paid." 

'I'ln'  coiitlu-ictiis  to  III'  di'awn  from  llicsc  cases  arc  liiat  a 
ticlvcl  i>  a  mere  voudicr  of  ijayiiiciit  :  liml  llicrc  must  itc 
notice  (o  tlic  ;ia>>''ii2i'i' <»r  any  «'oiitliti()ii  i'  may  contain  at 
or  hcforc  the  coniiiieti(»n  of  the  contract;  ihat  it  i>  imnia- 
torial  wiietiiei  a  coiitlilion  iimitini''  the  cai-rier's  lial)irily  is 
contained  on  tin-  face  oi'  the  i»ael<  of  a  ti<'i<ct,  iinh-ss  the  |)as- 
sentrcr  has  read  it  or  uide.-s  his  attention  ha>  heeii  caUed  to 
it  before  the  coniph'tioii  of  the  contract,  and  that  from  the 
hare  possession  of  the  ticket  conslructisc  k;i(»\\  h-ilj^e  of  its 
conditions  can  not  l»c  presijine«|. 

A  (hstinction  i>  taken  i:i  a  New  York  ca>e"'  l)et\veen  or- 
tlinai'v  steanilx  at  tickets  and  ocean  >teani>hip  ticket^,  for  the 
reason  that  an  en;iaLri'inent  for  a  \iiyai:'e  across  tlie  ocean  is 
a  matter  of  more  (h'lil»erati<»n  and  attention  than  ituyinu'  !i 
raih'oad  ticket  or  takinii"  an  expres--  company's  receipt  for 
Ijatr.il'aii'c  or  for  freiirht,  and  that  there  is,  tliereforc,  no  ri^oiij 
hi  such  a  case  for  the  suiiu'cstion  tiial  the  paity  is  surprised 
into  a  contract,  when  lie  supposes  iiim>elf  only  to  l»c  takin<; 
a  token  indicative  of  iii>  riiilit.  in  the  ca^'  referred  to,  ;;n 
()c<'an  steamship  company,  on  receiving'  a  pa--enL:'er's  fare, 
irave  her  a  printed  ticket  siuncd  l>y  their  ili'.'iiI,  conlaininu-  a 
stipuhition  tiiat  tlie  company  shouhl  not  i»e  iialih'  for  h>>s  of 
hai^'iraure  excepi  in  ca-e  of  iiro^s  ne;j:liL:<'nce  of  the  company 
or  its  ap'iits,  and  tix'ii  only  to  the  amount  of  :{!.')(i,  u!de-->  a 
hill  of  ia(hni:"  or  receipt  spccif\  ini^' the  arti(le->  was  sion.d  ; 
and  that  money,  jewelry  and  di  \alual.h'>,  wcrcjil  thepas.-en- 
<r(  r"s  risk,  unless  phiced  in  th"  company's  chariic  and  a  hill  of 
ladinir  or  receipt  siiiiied  th<'refor.  <  )n  n'oim:'  alioard,  the  pas- 
senii'cr's  trunk  was  liiven  in  c'larut'of  the  compinv's  ajrenls, 
who  as>umed  to  tal;e  char;:'c  oi'  it:  hut  the  comp.mN'  failed 
to  produce  or  accoiinl  for  the  trunk  at  (lie  end  (d"  the  \o\- 
a.<i'e.  In  an  action  to  reco\  er  for  th>'  lo^s  of  the  trunk  and 
contents,  it  was  jield  that  in  tlie  altsence  of  a  I'il!  of  la  '';!<; 
or  receipt  as  specitied  in  tin'  contract,  a  rec(i\'i\  (ould  not 
"■■'Slfcr-'  V.  I.iNcriiiKil  iVc.  SU';Liii>lii|i  I'o..  ."i7  N.  V.  1  (Is7lj. 


f-  --ri-H-  -jjiffr  '^^fsA-JSixxt^iSiSSX 


II.  1\ .] 


N(»TI(  KS  AM)  TIlKIli   i:ili:(  T. 


1  -Jl) 


l(c  IkkI  fill'  (i\ci-  iiTiO,  and  im  fccoviry  could  Nc  had  fnv  j<'\\- 
cli'v  or  silvci'  ware.  In  an  Knjiiisli  case  the  fads  and  deci- 
sion were  vciy  >iiniiai'.  A  passcniicr  liy  >tcani('r  from 
Anicrira  paid  tor  and  received  a  ticket  from  tiie  aii'enls  of 
tlic  oivners,  conlainin^i:  a  condition  e\eni|itini:'  tlic  ovtiiers 
fidin  iialiility  in  ca-^e  of  lo>>^  or  detention  of  tiie  siiip  liy  ac- 
cidents <d'  navijration  or  pei-ils  ol  ilie  sea,  and  from  rc^pon- 
sihility  for  luijfiraiic.  uidess  hills  of  lailini;'  had  luen  signed 
tiieri'for.  It  was  hehl  that  wlieica  passeniici-  had  not  had  a 
hill  (d'  ladinL'  siLHiecl  foi'  his  lu<j;i:a!ie,  he  <  ould  not  recover 
for  its  loss,  ihoiiLih  the  loss  was  occasioned  liy  the  ship  havinjj^ 
lieen  wreckecl  owiiii:"  to  the  neuli^^ence  of  the  captain.'" 

Ac<eplan<*' of  a  free  railroad  ticket ,  Itcarin;^'  an  iiidorse- 
nienl  lli.at  the  pei-~oM  "acceplin«r  this  ticket"  aj^rees  that 
th<'  company  sha.ll  not  l»e  liahle  for  (-ertain  losses,  is  said  to 
constimte  a  .  (iiitract  on  the  part  of  the  passenirer  with  the 
company,  <|ualifyinir  the  carrier's  common  law  lial)ility. 
The  passenirer  will  he  pi'esiiined  to  have  known  tlii'  contents 
of  ihe  ticket,  at  the  time  of  the  acceptance."' 

sj  1<)7.  JiiKfi/in/i-  ('/ircks. — Nor  are  checks  for  liaiipiiic  of 
such  a  character  as  to  raise  the  presumption  that  the  person 
to  whom  tln'V  are  delivered  knows  theii'  contt'iits  or  assents 
to  their  terms.  A  diliticnt  search  has  failed  to  reveal  a  sin- 
iile  decision  in  which  conditions  in  rcstricti<in  of  his  lialiility 
and  contained  in  this  kind  of  token  ha\e  hcen  of  any  avail 
to   the    cairier,    though    the    defence    has    hecn    iicfore    the 


1^ 


It 


'I'Wiliiiii  V.  AllMiilii'  l{<>\;il  Mail  St-'iiii  \:ivi:r:iti.>n  ('....  IOC.  I!.  N .  S. 

ir.:t  (i>^tii). 

"■■Wfljs  V.  N.  Y.f.ni.  K.  (•o.._M  \.  V..  |s|  ist;;.:  alllrmin<:,  n.  '■..  .Mi 
iJ.iih.  r.il  ;  Siiiilli  V.  N.  Y.c.nt.  |{.  <  ....21  \.  Will  l-iiJ-:  I't-rkhis  v. 
N.  V.i'i'iit.  |{.  Co..  21  \.  V.  I'.Hi  (iN(iJ).  hi  ilii'  liisi  case  it  is  -aid: 
••.\p|)l\  ill:.' lor  a  pas- or  fi-rc  liclvct:  laUiiiv:it  -..mi  iiaviii<;  it  In  liN  [xx-irs- 
siii'i  -uiuc  -i\  or  ciirlit  liiiiii-i  licfitrt'  till'  -larliiii;-  of  iIm-  Ic  liii  in  w liiili  lie 
\\:i-  lotro:  ami  lia\  iiii;  hi-  attfiiliiiii  cxitrc— ly  callrij  lo  its  icfin-.  la  I..'  in 
iiiiiiM  (lidii  Willi  llif  f.ni  fMiiml  1>\  llii-  jiiiy  llial  In'  ^^asal  llii' lliiic  <i|  ilic 
ai-i'ii|.ir  actually  lidiiiy  nn  ilil-  liri^ci,  if  iml  i  (ini'lii-ivi.  au  ilii-l  him  a-  a 
li'trii  I  ri'-iiiiiiiiiini.  wiiiild  III  |i'a-l  Ic  i'\  i'lciii-c  ihil  hi' a--riili(|  to  tiie 
ii'i'iii- iii>!nr-i'i|  ii|i. Ill  till' til  ki't  fi'iiiii  vvhicha  jiM'\  uin'lil  lie  aittliuri/i'il. 
lo  iiii|ily  siuh  a-sfiii." 


•I 


MP 


124 


THK  CONTIiACTS  OF  CAIMUKHS. 


[cm.  IV 


Lwbe*^ 


courts  ill  the  followiiiir  cases;      In    tilossatii    r.   /)()(,■■>,'"'•  al 
the  time  tliut  a  receipt  for  hajrptjrc  was  driven   to  tiie  plain- 
tiff lie  was  in  a  car  wliicii  was  so  darl<tiiat  it  was  inipossihie 
foi' iiini  to  read  certain   printed  stipulations   on   it.     These 
wei'c  in   line  [)rint.  Iiut   a  direction  to  "read  this,""  was  in 
conspicuous  print .      It    was  held  that   tho  plaintiff  was  not 
presumed   to   know   the  contents  of  the   receipt    or  to   have 
assented  to  them.     In  a  snl»se()uent  case  in  the  same  Stal(>"' 
tile  (hdendant's  aircnt  came  into  the  car  in  wliicli   the  plain- 
tiff was  si'ated,  called  for  lta<r,i;a,irc,  received  a  check  for  his 
trunk  and  directions  for  its  delivery,  made  an  entry  in   peii- 
<'il   ill    his   tally   hook,  marked  on  the    receipt    the   date,  the 
iiuiiii»er  of  the  check  and  the  place  of  delivery  of  the  trunk, 
handed  it  to  the  |»laiiitiff  and  immediately  passed  on,  notli- 
ini:'  further  IfiiiLf  said  to  or  i»y  the   |)laintiff.      The   latter 
folded  I  lie  papei-  and  without  lookin'jf  at     r  readinii'  it,  put  it 
in  his  pocket.      The  car  was  dimly  liui;  v  d,  and  the  plaintiff 
<'oilld  not,  in  the  place  where  he   was   seated,  have   read   the 
I'eccipf.      He  saw  the  a<i(Mit  writintr  <>n  the  paper,  hut    sup- 
posed he  was  writini:'  his  address.     The  receipt  was  marke(| 
upon  its  maririn  *'  Domestic  l)ill   of  ladin;r,"  and  piii-ported 
to  he  a  coiitracl  rclieviiiu- the  plaintiff   from    lialiilily  l>evoiid 
!^1(M)  ill  ccrlaiii   speciticd  cases,  amoiiL:'  oth.cis  a   loss  or  de- 
tention   thidiiuh  his  ne<jfli<i-eiice,  unless  the  hairirairc  was  siie- 
cially  insured.      The  circumstances  wei'e  more   favorahle  for 
the  carrier   than    in    /i/os.sot/i   r.  Jhtf/tf,  foi-   the    receij)t    wa< 
printed  in  lai'irer  type  and  on  a  lai'L^er  piece  of  paper.      Hut 
judiriiieiit  for   the  full   amount  of  the  loss  heinif  ohtained  on 
the  trial,  it  was  artirnicd  l»y  the  Supreme  Court    and  auaiii. 
on  appeal,  hy  the  Court  of  Appials.     *'  The  terms   for  <ar- 
ryillL^"'  said  Si'iKi;,  .!.,  "  vary  as  to  distances  to  he  carried. 
weiu;lit.  (|ualily  and  charact'-r  of  the  property  to  he  carried. 
The  husiness  itself  im|)lies  an  evju-ess  contract,  the  terms  of 
winicli  are  to  he  ascertained.      In    suvh  a   case   the   party    is 


.    I"' 4'  X.  V.  -Jdl  (]>i7i)). 

"•  MkI.ui  v.  SJiiMMi-.l.  10  J.  ^t.  S.  :{:>;j  (1><77):  7:\  \.  Y.  :U0  (1S7S). 


CM.   IV 


•] 


NOTIf'KS  AND  THKIK   KKKKCT 


i2r» 


Ixiuiul  to  tn'iit  the  papt'i'  a>  a  i'oiitiact  wlicii  \\v  lakes  it,  ami 
imist  be  iissiinicd  to  do  so.  Hut  in  tho  case  of  (.•arryin;/  a 
trunk  from  a  railway  station  to  one's  residence  l»y  I'xpi-ess. 
and  delivering;  into  tile  iiands  of  an  airent  a  eli«'ek  eonlain- 
ini;  the  nundter,  and  receiving  a  reeeipt ,  does  not  neces- 
sarily "niply  terms  of  limitation  to  !ie  set  down  in  \vrilinL^  It 
may  lie  an  implied  coniiact ,  and  it  mi^ilit  or  it  mi^ilit  not 
contain  terms  of  limitation,  in  such  a  <'ase  a  person  to 
whom  the  receipt  is  deli\«'red  is  not  oMiiied,  as  matter  of 
law,  to  make  himself  a<'i|iiaiiite(|  with  it^  terms  and  I'ound 
liy  llicm  as  if  he  had  done  so.""  Cii.ns,  ( '.  ,1.:  ••  No  cas- 
liohls  that  a  traveler  rec«'ivin<r  a  receipt  of  this  nature.  an<i 
iiiidei'  like  circumstances  where  it  is  impossihle  to  read  it, 
ami  no  intimation  is  jriven  him  of  its  emhiacinu  a  contract, 
is  hound  hy  such  contract,  besides,  ihei'e  are  int rinsic  dilli- 
eulties  in  e\tendin<r  any  such  immunily  from  liability  to 
parties  eniraired  in  the  porteraiTc  of  lra\('lers  liairiraui'  at 
iiiLdit  in  lai'ii'e  communities.  The  printiiiii' near  the  connnence- 
liieni  id"  the  I'eceipt  the  Words  ■  Doinotic  bill  of  hldill'i' " 
tloes  not  obviate  the  di>t iiict ion  di'aw  n  in  the  eases  above  re- 
feiM'ed  t<t,  ihouiih  possibly  >o  intended.""  Andukws,  .1.  : 
••  The  plaintiff  <iii  re<'ei\  iuLi' l!ie  papci'  had.  from  the  ii:niire 
and  cii'cumstani'es  of  the  t i':in-aclion.  a  riuiil  to  regard  it  as 
desiirned  simph  a>  a  \ituciier  to  imk'.Mc  him  to  follow  I'.ml 
identify  his  property  ;  and  if  he  had  no  notice  that  it  was 
intcijfled  to  sidiserve  any  other  purpose  or  that  it  einluidied 
the  term-  of  a  special  I'onlract,  his  omission  to  read  it  u-is 
not  />' r  sr  iH^uiiufenee.  NN'hen  a  conii'act  i<  i'e(|uire<l  to  lie  in 
wrilinir  ami  a  party  receives  a  papci-  a-^  a  contract,  or  v.heii 
he  knows  oi'  has  reason  to  suppose  that  a  paper  delivered  to 
him  contains  the  terms  of  a  -pecial  contract,  he  is  bound 
to  a<i|uaiiit  hini-elf  with  its  content^,  and  if  he  accept-  a.nd 
retain-;  it.  he  will  be  liound  by  it  allhouLih  he  (lid  not  read  it . 
liilt  llii-  rule  can  not.  foi'  the  I'casons  stated,  be  applied  to 
ihi-  ca-e.  an<l  the  court  propci'|\  r(d'n-ed  to  chai'iic  as 
inalier  of  law  that  the  delivery  of  the  receipt  created  a  con- 
tract for  the  caii'iaiic  of  the   trinsk  under  its   terms."      Tlu 


ft 


i2<; 


TIIK  (•oNTI!A(  l^  or  CAItlllKllS. 


L<M.    IV 


(•ascs  of  Proifio'  >'.  hcrhr.^^"  Llnilnn'ti'r  r.  M  V.s/»7;//.'' '  niid 
iSnnih'rl(tii<l  >'.    \\'i->ilriilf^-"   arc  to  tin*   same   ('Ffcct. 

In  IiidiMiia  il  lias  Ix-cii  held  that  a  printed  liiDitatimi  on 
tlir  liack  of  a  cluck  for  i»ai:;ii-aii-c  that  tlic  cai'iic!'  will  uoi  Kc 
hoiiiul  o\t  T  one  liundi'cd  dollar-  in  cax'  of  lo>s.  is  not  'lind- 
ini:'  on  the  passcniicr  uuh'ss  his  cxpi-css  assent  to  the  limita- 
tion is  shown — the  men*  receipt  of  the  check  is  no  evidence 
of  such  assent,'-'  the  court  referrinii' with  conlidence  to  F^ord 
Ki.i.KNni)i!ot  (ill's  "noii-supposiiiL!:  person,"'--  and  saving:: 
"We  inav  well  conclude  that  a  passenj^er  I'cceivini:-  a  nieial 
check  fi»r  his  ItaLrpiii'e  marked  willi  its  (h'stinatiou  and  the 
numher  would  i>e  '*non-supposin:f'  of  the  release  of  the 
carrier's  liahility  stamped  upon  the  other  side." 

§  lOiS.  MtiiiiK'i' of  Prliillmi  Xnli<'i's. — Notices  which  show 
up<»n  their  face  an  attempt  to  distfuise  their  real  purpose 
ohtain  little  sympathy  from  the  i'onrt< — as  when  small  type 
i>  usetl  to  set  out  the  conditions  in  oi'dcr  that  they  may  es- 
('a|)e  the  attention  of  the  (aistomer.  It  wa^  cai'ly  said  that 
a  n<itice,  in  (irder  to  avail  the  earlier.  ouLihl  to  Ix-  in  such 
larii'e  characters  that  no  person  rec«'i\inii'  it  could  fail  to  un- 
derstand its  terms  unless  jfrossly  nciiliii'ent ,'-''  and  end'la/on- 
iii'jf  the  general  object  of  a  notice  on  the  papei'  in  larLi'c  let- 
ters, while  the  restrictions  are  stated  in  small  one~,  is  sulli- 


'"  l!)Karl».  IX  O^'i"'")- 

>i'  I!)  B:irt>.  'l^A  (tMir,). 

'-" -J  SwtM'Mi'y.  •Jiiil  (Isru).  Till-  pliihitifrs  ilmiirliliT.  iicciiinpMiiici!  In- 
iUioilifr  y(mnj;  irirl.  liflivfi'cil  ;i  dici'U  fur  ;i  irimk  in  ilic  clcik  >if  ii  ii:m-- 
fcr  ciiiiipaiiy  :ii  Ni'W  V<irK.  willi  iliirciioii^i  In  niiry  il  In  lici-  limiu'  in 
Uionklyii.  Sill' was  mImhiI  tn  Iciac  iIh'  nlllci' wiicii.  at  licr  cniiipaiiinii's 
!iHj;:r<'-tioii  tiial  >lii'  niiirhi  in  Iia\i'  a  iccciiii.  ■^Iic  niiiiiic(l  tn  ijic  (|c>i»  ami 
()i'iiiaii(li'i|  a  ri'ri'i|ii  n|  ilic  rlcrk.  \\  Im  liainlcil  jut  nnr  in  w  lilcli.  aninii!;' 
otln-r  lliin;:'^.  il  was  sii|iiilali'i|  ihal  liic  ennipaiiy  >iiniil(i  imi  he  iialih-  In 
an  ainniint  ixci'dliii;;  ■'SKiii.  iinlcss  a  s|ici-ial  cnnliari  wa-  inailc.  'I'lic 
trunk  ami  its  cnnii'iils  were  wmih  91111(1.  Iml  iinlliiiiti,'  wa- salil  a-  li<il> 
valiii'.  iiciiliiM-  iliil  -lie  rcail  tin-  r''i'i'l|(l  nr  :-i'c  Its  cniiti'iii-  ni  t.!  ;i|  i  ;  lin' 
lo-s  nf  the  trunk.  It  ua-  licjij  jjial  tin- iintjci!  wa>  iii('ffi'ciiia|.  h<t».j- 
nilf  V.  Sli.MTar.l.s  iluii.  :(•_>-•  (iSTlj). 

'-'  liiiliaiia|inli-  U.  Co.  v.  {'>\s.  ■.'!l  iml.  :5(iO  flSfW). 

'-'-'  Set-  iiHli\  <  'a|p.  IV.  siT.  !i;i. 

'-■(  'laytnii  V.  Hunt.  :l  <  'anip.  il  i\<\\). 


(  II.    IV.] 


XOTKKS  AM)  TIIKIi;   KKFKCT. 


\2: 


cicnl  ((I  render  it  ineCfeetiinl.'-'  In  mm  old  ease,'--'  a  liand- 
hill  was  iiaile(l  upon  the  door  of  ll;e  reeeiviiiu'  olHee  of  tlie 
carrier  wliifli  stated  in  iarL'c  piiut  the  many  advantaiics  of 
the  route,  and  in  small  eharaeters  at  the  l)ottom  tli.nt  the 
carrier  would  not  l)e  answerahle  for  Li'oods  altove  the  value 
of  i.'')  uidess  entered  and  paid  for  aecordinuly.  Lord 
10i.i.i;\n<)i!or(iii  :  ••This  is  not  enoiiiih  to  limit  the  defend- 
ant's common  law  liahilitv.  We  have  not  sntKeient  evi- 
dence of  any  s|)ecial  contract.  The  jury  ouiiht  to  believe 
that  at  the  time  when  the  trunk  was  delivered  at  th(>  w.aijou 
ofliee  the  plaintiff  or  his  aireut  tiiei'e  s:iw,  or  had  ample 
nu' nis  of  .-(■(■in::,  the  terms  on  which  the  defendant  carries 
on  his  husiness.  How  can  liiis  he  inferred  fi-om  the  hand- 
It;!!  nailecl  on  tin-  door,  which  called  tiu'  attention  to  everv- 
tliiiiu' that  was  attractive  and  concealed  what  was  calculated 
to  rcp^'l  customers?  If  a  common  cari'ier  is  |o  h(>  allowed 
to  !iniit  his  responsihility,  he  mu^t  take  care  that  everv  one 
wlit)  deals  with  him  is  fully  informed  of  the  limits  to  which 
lie  conlines  it.""  In  <evei'al  ca-.es  in  this  eoinitry  where  r<'- 
sti'ictive  conditions  in  iiilh  of  lading'  have  heen  upheld,  the 
courts  have  laid  -li'e---  upon  the  fact  that  the  conditions 
vvei-e  expressed  in  tlie  papers  in  a  way  not  calculated  to  es- 
(•  ipi'  attention.'-''' 

'•' VcnuT  V.  Swcit/.cr.  liJ  I'a.  St.  -JOS  (ts.'iS). 

'i' Itiiilfi- v.  Ilcani'.  ■-•  Ciiiiip.  I!r>  Hslin. 

'-'"  (JiMco  v.  Ailiiiii-.  !il!)  M:i<-.  .Vl.-i  (IsfpS);  IlDudlcy  v.  X.irliii'rn  'friUH. 
('o..  liT)  ."\Ia«.  ;IUI  (js7l):  SniiJiT  v.  .\ilaiii<  {•:\.  Cii..  (;;{  Mo.  :i7ii.  I  Cent. 
I..  .1.  ITit  (isriij.      In   Steel-   V.   I,i\er|io,il   Ae.  Sle:i  in^ili])   Co..  .■>7  N .  Y.  1 

(1S71).  the  coniM.  in  -n-!alninir  a  enniliiiuM  in  ai can  «te;iiiislii|)  tieliet. 

say:  ••A  printeil^Wi'- ./ki/'.  of  iiii~  |ianer  i<  hefoii'  h<.  and  alllioui;li  part 
el'  it  IS  in  -mailer  type  tlian  lie'  r-'-l.  n  i  part  of  it  is  in  sneli  type  as  to 
■.Ui:u,es|  lo  ihe  iniinl  the  iijea  di'  eoni-e.-iinienl  as  liie  pdssilije motive  for  it 
liein^  tiiiis  piin'ed.  Ii  |s  all  prinleil  on  one  side  of  the  paper,  and  all  the 
piinted  matter  pre.-cdes  the  <i^!;:ii!n''  of  the  ai^ent  of  the  defendant." 


128 


rilK  f  ()NTI!A(TS  OK  CAKUIKIIS. 


[Cll.    V. 


CHAITKli   V, 


CONIKACTS    I.IMITI.\(;    I.IAIIir.nV   AM)    IIIKIK   KI  KIMT. 

SK<   rioN. 

Id'.i.  I  Iririicti'i-  (if  l".iii|il(i\  lui'iil  Nni  I 'lumj^cd  by  (  Oiiiiacl. 

110.  i:\(f|i|  ill  Spiciiil  t'liM's. 

111.  (    OMlllHt     How    !•>  illf'lH'IMJ. 

Il-J.  Ilill«  of  Ladiii;;-. 

IK!.  Wrillcii  (  oiiliaci  ('oiii'lii>ivi'. 

III.  ilfli'ct  of  Siil)S('(|iii'iit  DcliviiT  of  Writing,'-  IJmilin;.;  Mahiliiy. 

ll."i.  < 'ojjalci'al  A.i^i'ci'iiiciit  oi  Sii|ipl('iii('iitary  ("oiilrari   .May  lie  Slio\\  u. 

in;.  Oilier  Cases  Wlicic  I'arol  K\i(leiiee  Adillissilile  —  I'laiid       Mj-lilk«' 

—  Duress. 

117.  'I'll!'  IJi^li.-li  ••  Railway  and  Caiial 'riallie  Ael." 

IIS.  ••.Iii>laiid   |{ea-oiialile  ■■  <  diidiiioiis. 

Ilii.  ('oiidltioiis  .\o|   ".lii^laiid   h'ea-oiialile."" 

IJd.  ( 'oiidilioiis  .Siislaiiied  liy  Ihe  .\iiierieaii  I  oiirts. 

I'Jl.  I'lireasoiialile  and  \'oid  (  oiidilioiis. 

I'J'J.  Ue;illlatioiis  ill  llii- 'riall-|>orlaiiuii  of   |,i\e  Sloik. 

\2'A.  Means  of  Carryinir  Ont  ('oiidilioiis  Mu-l  lie  I'l'iiviileil, 

121.  iii'^nijinee. 

l'l'>.  I'sa^res  and  ('iisioins. 


•11 


§  ion.  ( '//(D-dcfcr  iij'  J'Jiii/i/iii/iiK'iif  Nnl  Cluimjcil  In/  ( 'on- 
(nivL — It  lin.s  Ik'cii  .>s;ii(l  in  some  cuscs  '  llml  wlific  a  liinitcd 
r(>sj)(>iisil»ility  is  conlractcd  for  l»y  ;i  (iiiiimiom  •■arriri'.  lio 
thcrcliy  loses  that  cliaraclcr,  and  In'romcs  a  private  carric;' or 
an  ordinary  liaiicc  for  liiic.  ISiit  this  view  i,s  olivioiish  in- 
('orrcct .  and  is  snpporlcd  liy  iicitlicr  reason  nor  autliorit  \  .  It 
is  only  in  the  iili.-ciici'  of  coiitiad    tiial    the   law   dcliiics  ilic 

'  A-  ill    I'emi   V.   r,ii;'tal<>  A  ■.  I{-  Co..  I'.l    N.  V.  J(l|  (|s7J):    i.aUe  M.or.' 
t^c.  i{.  (  o.  V.  I'.Ti.iiis.  •.>,".  Mich,  :i-';i  ( IS7J).  /«/•  (ir.ives.  .1. 


(II.   v.]  CONTKACTS  AM)  TIIKIU  KII  r,(  T. 


1l'!I 


r('s|ioiisiliiIilic-i  oF  cKinnioii  cnrrici's  in  their  widcsl  sense;  iji 
llie  purlies  liave  made  lliei"  own  iin':iiii_'«'ineiil ,  lluit  ((iiitiaei 
will  i^oveni  unless  coiitl'arv  lo  llie  |><ili»v  of  llie  law.  'I'lie 
eliaiai'lel'  of  llie  eni|)ln\  iiient  remains  niiarreeleil.  alllioiiLlli 
Oiir  lialtililie>  (if  llie  carrier  iiiav  he  moditieil   Iti  aiiv  exieiil 

MJldWCil  li\'  law.  In  Udllrntil  (  'nm jui in/  r.  /.or/.-irnntl,-  .Mr. 
,ltisiiee  l)i!Ai)i,i;v  referriMl  1(1  llie  dixii^sion  whieli  Iliis  siili- 
jecl  lias  received  in  tlic^e  words;  "  It  i>  ar'.riieil,"  he  said, 
"that  a  eiimniDU  eai'i'iei-,  hv  eiiterin;.!'  into  a  speeial  eontraet 
with  a  partv  for  eari'vini;'  his  n'onds  oi-  |i«'rs(iii  mi  modilied 
terms,  dn)i»>  his  ehai'aeler  and  lieeoiiies  ;in  ordinary  luiilee 
for  liii'e,  :iiid  thei'eftn'e  iiiav  make  any  eontiMet  he  |»lea-es. 
'riiat  is,  lie  mav  make  aiiv  eontraet  wliateNcr,  Iter.Miise  he  is 
an  (irdinarv  Iiailee  ;  and  he  is  an  urdinarv  liailee  l»ee;iii-.i>  he 
ha>  made  the  con  tract .  ^^  e  jire  niialde  to  see  the  >ouiMiness 
of  this  i"e;i>oninjjf.  Il  >eeni>  to  n>  more  accurate  to  >ay 
that  coinnion  ciiri'iers  arc  -iich  liy  \iiiuc  of  ijicir  occup.a- 
lidii.  iii/l  li\  \ii-|ne(d'  the  rcs|ioii>il>ilili<'~  under  wliichtluv 
re-l .  I  lio-e  rc-)»oii>il)ililii's  may  \aiv  in  dill«icnl  coim- 
(ri''s  Mini  at  ditTcrcnl  times,  without  chan;:in^- 1  In- cli.tracjer 
of  iIh'  I  ;ni>ioymenl .  The  common  law  .>nl;jccts  the  com- 
mon caiii''r  lo  iii-in.ince  of  the  _;i)od>  carri-.d.  ••.\i-e|t|  a-. 
a<;ain-!  lh<'  ai  I  of  (ioil  or  pnMic  enemies.  The  civil  law  ex- 
re|)|s,  n\f(i,  los-cs  liy  m.'aii-<  (d'  any  -upeiior  foi-c  and  any 
ilievila!»lc  iiccjd.iif,  "let  ihe  enij>lo\  nieul  is  ihe  »ame  in 
holli  cases.  Aij-i  if  l»y  special  aureemcnl  ilie  carrier  is  e\- 
empteil  from  still  oiher  risp(m»!l»ililies  it  doe>  iioi  fidlow 
thai  his  ciiijiloymenl  is  cliaiiii'tMJ,  hut  only  liiat  his  I'esjiMUisi- 
Itiiilie-^  jire  chanL'('d.  The  il!e(ny  oceasion;dly  anmouiM-ed, 
ihal  a  siMcial  contract  as  to  ihv  Icniis  ;;nd  re-poii-ihilHVs 
of  rari'iap'  c'linti'^t'--  the  naiuie  ui'  iln'  eiiiplo\mcm,  is  cal»-u- 
lattdf/;  mi>lcad.  The  respoiisihilil ie-  of  a  common  carrier 
max  Ite  icdi/ccd  lo  those  of  :tri  (U'di:iai'y  haiice  fi^r  hij'e, 
wlii|-.|  the  naliire  of  hi^  hiisiue^'.  reuih-r^  him  a  c  )iiniion 
carrier  still.  i-  tlarc  anv  irood  sense  in  liohlln^-  that  a  rail- 
road coni)Miiy,  wli()s«'  onl\  hiisiness   is   lo   cari'V  passeii«:«'r.H 

'J  17  \V;ill.  ;!.".7  (  is7:t;< 
11 


M 


m 


n 


li 


l.'U) 


TiiK  coNTitArrs  or  caimmkiis. 


[cii.  V 


•iimI  l''<»(m1s,  iiiid  uliicli  \\;is  crcjitt'd  ;iii(l  csljiitlislicd    for  ilmt 
jtiii'|K)sc  iilinif,  is  t'li;iM;Lr<'<l   t(i   M    |)i'iv:itt'  carrici'  ('or   hire   li\ 
a   iiific  <(iiili-:i(t    uiili  a   ciistoincr,   \vli('r<'l>y   ihr    lalfcr  as- 
suiiifs  llic  risk  of  iiu-vitaMc  arci(iciit>  in  the  cairiatic  of  his 
•roods?     Siippovf  llic  conlract   rclMtcs  to  a    sir;_d('   i  rale  of 
^iass  or  crorkcry,  wliils)  at  liic  same  lime  llu'  cai'i'icr  rcccivc.- 
from  llic  same  lurson  tuciily  oilier  paiccis,  ics|)eeliiiir  wliicii 
no   coiiliacl    is    itiade.      fs  tlie  foiiipaiiy  a   piiMic  eaiTier  as 
lo  llie  twenty  panels  and  a  private  eanier  as  to  tlie  one?" 
In  a    Mieliiiraii  ease' M.m;ti\,  (".  J.,  illiist lales  the  status  of 
the   parties  niidei' a  special  (oiitiaet.  l>y  the  somewhat  aiial- 
a_i;'oii>  employment   oF    an  iiin-keepei*.      *'  An   inn-keeper  is 
one  who  keep-  a  house  open   foi'  the  eiilertainmeiit  of  Irav- 
t'lers  ;  and  the  law,  in  hi-  ea>e  (as  in  that  of  eomnion  eari'i- 
evs),  imposes  upon   him   >pe(  iai    lialiilities  as   to   his  <jfuest's 
property.     Vet  no  one  doijlit-  luit  that  >iieli  lialulity  ma\'  he 
lessened   or   restri<'led    l)y  a  eontraet    ix-tween  the   landlord 
and  sueh  i:'ne>t  :  and  if  it   >hould   lu>,   I   apprehend  no  one 
would  eon-ider  the  foiMiier  any  the  less  an   inn-keeper.      He 
is  still  exei'ei-in<:'  his  pnltlie  employment,  and   Itound  l»y  his 
primary  ol»li<:'alion,  namely,  to  entertain  all   pei>ons  apply- 
ing: :  ainl  this   olili^Tiilioii    e.\leiid>   in    fa\()r  of    the   traveler 
who  may.  hy  spt-eial  i'oiilra<'t,  have  rtdeased  him  from  some 
or  all  of  the  extraordinary   lialiilities   imposed    l»\   (he   Iii\s 
in    his   behalf,      [t    is    upon   the   ha -is  of    his    holdinc-  sneli 
•  haraeler  that  the  eomiaet  is  made."'     For  llie>e  n-a.-ons  a 
piirly  eiiL''af.''ed  a-  a  ediniiion  <'airier  ean  not.  l",-  derjaiin^-  or 
slipulillill^  (lull  he  sIimII  not   he  so  considered,  divert  hiliiseH' 
<if  till'  lialiilily  atlachi  d  to  the  lixi'd   ic;.'al   cjiaracter  .d'  thai 
(/( /  tipiilioii — IIS,  for  example,  in  thecaf«e(»f  /Hi  eH|M('r'- coni- 
piiliy  coliliaelliii/  not  (o  "carry"  Inil  to  "forward."'' 

HWiUltfiiU  t  ..()<    U  in,  V.  Iliilf.  (!  Ml.ji,  :,'|;(  ilsriii). 

^S«>c  al-0  lhtsiii»(iU  V,  (iniliiiiii,  -2  Olil'i  Hi.  jilj  /|Nri:ii:  (iniliiiiii  v. 
|)|ivi<.  I  III.  :'>i;2  nsrd):  Hwhldll'l' V,  llllllnnl.  I  Idcli.  (S.  <'.)  2\n  .  IM<i); 
I'liiKcr  V,  Drni  uii.li  |il.  -Jdi  ( hrifl; ;  hl<clc  v.  'I'ew  n- 'lul.  ;;7  Alii.  Jil 
(iMii;. 

''Bi'iiK  cf  KciiliHliv  V.  .\(|j((|i^  Ms.  »',,..  !i;l  r.  ,'s,  17!.  I  Cut,  I,.  ,1.  ;!.' 
(l>-7<i):  Hi'ttil  s,  -•\iniUl\im.  .'»  Hi -w ,    |iil»     l-,",!!   ;  ai;;.iiii  i  ;»i»  S,  \.^'>^A• 


(11.  v.] 


rOXTUACTS  AMI    IIIKlIt   Kll  r.< 


i;ii 


§  110.  I^.iiijil  ill  Sjtirldl  ('iiHi'S, — "A  comiiKiii  ciinicl" 
iii!:\ ,  iiii(l(»iil>t('(lly,  Ix'ciiiiic  a  private  canicr,  or  a  Itailcc  foi* 
liirc,  when  a>  a  niatter  of  aeroniniotlalion  or  speeial  eii- 
/aiiemeiit,  lie  iiiitlertakes  to  earrv  sniiulhiiifr  uliieji  it  is  not 
his  business  to  carry,  l-'or  example,  if  a  carrier  of  pro- 
duce, ruiniiiiLi'  a  truck  Itoat  ltet".\eeii  New  VorU  city  ami 
Norfolk,  shouhl  l>e  i-e(pie>te(l  to  carry  a  keir  of  specie,  or  a 
load  of  expeiisi\('  furiiiiure.  «liicli  he  could  justly  nfu^i'  to 
take,  such  .•ii'reenieiii  nii^iht  lie  Miad<'  in  reference  to  his 
takinjj:  and  carryinii'  the  same  as  the  parties  eho^c  to  make, 
not  invol\in<f  any  stipulation  contrary  to  law  or  pulilic 
policy.  I5ut  when  a  lari'ier  ha-  a  reirular  e>tal»li'-lii'd  l»usi- 
ness  foi-  carryiiii:'  ail  or  ceitain  articlo,  and  especi.dly  if 
that  carrier  l»e  a  corporation  ci'cated  for  the  pwi'posc  of  the 
cari'viui:'  tratle,  and  the  eari'iai;*'  of  the  articles  is  eniiir.iccd 
within  the  scope  of  its  ehartered  p  )w»'rs,  it  is  a  c(unmon 
carrier,  and  a  special  conli'act  ahoul  its  respoiisihility  does 
not  divot  it  of  the  character."' '■ 

vj  1  1  1  .  Cniilniil  lluir  h'rii/riirci/. — Altiioui:h  in  this 
<'oinitry  there  is  no  t:('neral  law  i-ei|uirinu"  contracts  limitinir 
the  lialiilities  of  eominon  carriers  to  l»e  in  writinir,  and  >uch 
contra<ts  ai'c  tliei'ef(ue  iiood  if  made  l>y  paidl.'  t  he  dilH- 
«ulty  (d"  proNinii'  an  express  aifrcement  to  wai\e  any  pait  of 
the  (ariicrs  duties  jn  imy  ease  renders  it  lu'cessaiy  that 
ncLiotiations  of  this  characlei' should  l»i'  evidenced  l»y  some- 
thing: UKU'c  dclinite  than  mere  words.  It  has  thci'etorc  he- 
c(une  the  almost  univeisal  practice  f(U'  (lie  carrier  at  the 
time  of  llli'  t'i'cclpl  (d'  the  ^MO<{s  |o  pi||  hi  ^U'ilJlig  the  terms 
Upon  which  they  are  receivetj  fid'  lh||h|i(i|'l(lll(ill.  Hl|('l» 
»iitiii<rs  lire  eoiiiiiiiiiil)  ciilli'il  IiIIIh  iif  |tiilln/r. 

(isaii  :  SitidlKrlMi'  V.  (diiilo.  II  llli'li,  IN,  {',1  Mill  ll^<A)h:  Itnil  v.  riijliil 
Hliilr*  Kx|in'.«s('.i..  IS  N.  V.  KlJ  (|s7J,;  SI.  |.iiiil>  Ac.  II,  ri),  V.  |'||Mr. 
l:t  \\:\<.  ."id;.  ils7l):  Ul..s«i.iii  \.  (Iiillin.  1:1  N.  V. , ■){;'. i  (ls.".(i). 

'  Mr.  .In*llic  Mnidl.-y  in  i{Miln.;i.|  < '...  v.  I.dcliu 1.7  WmII.  ;i:,7  (IS7:!). 

'  AiiiiTitaii  Trail'.  Co.  V.  Mcum.  .">  Mirji.  ;|i|,s  txri"*ii  |>iitiiiv.  lliiiniH'r. 
i:{  l.;i.  .\iiii.  I-".-'  Is.-.S):  |!..l,ci!>  \.  jJilty.  15  |,a.  Ana.  Ifi.l  tsllOj  ;  Mlicj- 
l>'ii  V.  M<irli:ml<  |)i-|ialili  Co..  lie,  N.  ^.  iS.  (  ..  ."rJ7  i  ls7:i ).  >.  c..  ,")!)  N . 
V.  'J.Vs  (\>7\   . 


I 


il 


i;j-> 


TMK  niNTIfACTS  or  CMMJlKItS. 


[<n.  V. 


^  111'.    Hills  of  Liitliiiii.  —  III  >tricliic-.>  a  liill  (if   hidiM'i  is 
the  iiclxiioulciliiiiii'iit  jfivfii  l>v  till'  iii;i-t(  r  nf  i\  \ »■>>«•!  si-ilinir 

(111-    rci('i|ll    of   ill*'   jroods,  SI't  tiller  "Ht    lln'    «'llHr!|y;(illil|lt    tuc.ll'IV 

iiikI  <li'li\»r.  ''HkI  txcfiitctl  in  liiplir.itc,  one  ('dpy   ln-iii^' sent 
(()  llic  (•<>ii>ii!'ii"t'.  "lie  rclMiiii'il  liv  I  III'  ((iiisiiiiior  :iimI  niic  liv 
tlic  niMstcr.'     nm  >iiiiil;ir  iii>lniiiiriits,  cx.ciit  tlint  im  diipli- 
cillcs  Ml'»'  lllililr.  iil'c    now  il-rd    liy  cMlTicl'--    liy   l.-iliil,  :iiii|    :iic 
;i|s(i    <|('iii>iiiiii:itt''l    liill^    <•!'  I:i<lii!ij'.    llnmiili    sonicliincs    llic 
word    "iiihiid"    i--    l>ri'li\cd    to    tlic    dr^rri|iii<)ii  ;    and    llic 
imni'i's  dclivt'i-i'il  l>y  rNpcc--  coiiiiianio  ai'i'(d'  like  <'liaracl('r. ' 
A    Kill    of  ladinu' i>    lln  rt'foic   at  oiict-   a    iTccipl  and    a  coii- 
Iract;    and  so    fiir  !i>    il    is    incicly  llic    foriiiir  il    may   In- 
varied  or  cuiilradiclrd  liy  jiaroj   r\  idciict'.'"     'I'lnis  the  (|iiaii- 
tilv   of  i:(»ods    rci'i'ivi'd,  the   (■onti'ii(>    of  lioxcs  or    halc>  or 
(he   liUt',   and   tln'ir   value  or   condilioii,  may    l>e   shown    Itv 
parol  to  lie  different    from    the   >tatemeiils   regard ini;'  them 
made  in  the  receipt."     So,  one    who  forwards   i^oods  l»v  ex- 
press   is    not  ali.-oliitely  etnieliidcd  hy  a    I'eeilal  of  the  value 
eoiilailied    in    file    express    receipt.       Me  may    >liow.    for  ili- 
stanee.  not  witlistandiiiL:' thai  the  receipt  \aliies   the   pacl<ai!-e 
at    iifl\'    dollars,  that    tln'  package  wa>  recci\cd  liy  the  com- 
pan\'s  ae-eiit  with  full  kimw  Icdn"!' that    il  eoiilaiiied   a    much 
laru'er   sum  ;  and   on    such    |)roid'  licinn'   niade,    the   lialiilily 
of  l!ie  company  for  loss  i->  not  limited  to  lif'.y  dollars. '-' 

^  11.").  Will  till  Cituii-drl  (  '(Hicliis!)-!'.  —  liiit  in  rc>pecl  to 
the  aLii'eemeiil  to  carry  and  deliver  the  t;ood>.  the  hill  of 
lailinu'  or  oila  r  writini;'  dili\crci|  and  accepted  a>  the  auTee- 
inelit     lietwecn    llie  parlies    coii^t  iliiles,  with    it-    exceptions, 

"  Alil")ll"~  Law  i»ii-ii(iiMi-.v,  1  |.s. 

'•'  Aiiti'  Cap.  IV.  it  Wl. 

I"  (\^K  V.  I'clcrsi.n.  Hi)  Ala.  iii>-«  i  |s,-)7  i  ;  Wayland  v.  Mn^cliv,  .".  Ala.  Il'.i) 
(I8l:»);  MfViT  V.  I'fck. -js  N.  V.  .V.io  (Isiili.  Sr.' //..v/.  ( ',ip.  \  III.  ■•(id...! 
( ifdiT  ami  ( 'ciidiliipii."  ••N'aliic  ami  ( 'iiiil<'iii>  1  tiluiuw  ii.""  'riic  iii|iii()ii 
<if  a  liill  <>l'  lailiiiu'  is  a  jtarl  nl'  tlic  cuiitiaii.  li'oliin-iMi  \.  Mi  icliaiil-i 
Ui-ipali'li  'I'laii^.  I  'n..  I'l  liiwa.  I7ii  >  |s77i :  Slew  mi  \ .  Miiiliaiil-  hi-jiali'li 
'rraii-.  I  n..  17  liiwii.  i'AW  (I.s77j. 

II  ll.i.i. 

I-  Kcmlicr  V.  SniilliiTii  Mxiut'-- ( 'u.,  -J-J  I, a.  .\iiii.  l.'iS  (_ls7(l) ;  .Sdutli'-ni 
Mxprc-s  ('().  V  New  liy.  :!ii  (Jr.  ii;i."i  (|S(;7). 


^  ■  ■.■-'x 


<ir.  V 


,  1 


COXTUACTH    \M»  TIIKlIt  KI'I'KCT. 


1  :i;i 


the  riMilriK't  Ix'tWi-fil  tilt  111,  1111(1  it  U  iiillli:it<'|-i:il  wIlfllitT  it 
\V!is  rend  at  tlic  time  (»f  >i;.'iiiii;r  <tr  at  rc|»liii;r  or  not.tir 
wliftlicr  aiivthiiiir  was  saiti  alioitt  tlif  fxct'iitioiis  coiilaiiuMl 
ill  it."  This  is  simply  t(»  say  tli:it  a  party  cnti'riii.!.'' iiil"  a 
cdiitrafl  i>  prt-suiiiiMl  to  do  >o  with  his  eyes  open,  and  in  tlu' 
al»>t'ii«t'  t)f  IVaiitj  or  inisiaki'  lan  not  lif  allo\\rt|  to  prt'ti'iid 
III  aLiii'f  to  thai  whicli  it  is  his  intfiitioii  al'lciuards  tti  rt'pii- 
dialc.  Sijtji  a  fontral  is  to  he  foii>t  rufti  liki"  all  ttthcl" 
uiitti'ii  ctfiitiMt't*.  iiffofdiiiir  to  the  It'^ral  import  td'  ii^tiTms, 
aid  It  may  ii<i|  li  \ai'ii'd  liy  paitd  f\  idcncc."  (  )ih'  afffpt- 
iii'U  a  liill  (d"  ladiiii:'  wliidi  ('\pn's>-ly  fxciiipts  tin'  fai  ritT 
I'liiiii  liiliilily  for  (tilain  losers,  will  he  'toiiiid  liy  the 
tf-iii'  til'  the  tvcmpiioii,  allhoiiLih  at  tlif  timt'  <d'  the  arccpi- 
aiwf  lit'  slated  liiat  llu'  lari'ifr  woiiltl  he  li;iM-'  iititwith- 
>landimi  tlii-  fliiiM-.  tlii.>  licini:  nifrcly  an  opiiiitm  as  !<»  thf 
lc,i:;il  .dT.'ct   <>(   ihf  liill  (d"    ladiinr.'-' 

Iiil<f\\  i>i',  ii  ■■  ill  llic  ca-i' (d'  ollii'i'  I'oiitiMcts,  ihf  writing 
liccoiiif^  till'  -oil'  ('\  iilciiic  id'  the  midcrtakiiiir  ami  all  anlc- 
cfdciit  aiiTi-cmfiils  or  uiidfrtaUiiiiis  :irc  mcriifd  thcrt'in  ami 
i'\lim;iiis|icd   tlicniiy.'''       As    uhcrt'   the  foiiti'aft    stipniatfs 


'•  ItMiiK  i.f  KriiiiiiKy  V.  Ad. nil-  i;x|irrs.  (  i...  !i;t  I'.  >.  17l(ls7(ii:  I 
i'.iil.  I..  .I.;i.".  I><7i;  :  Vi'iU  (  niniinnv  v.  < 'fiilr.il  l!ailii>:iil.  :!  \V;ill.  H>7 
ilsc",  :  (;i;i(r  V.  Ail.im-.  1(1(1  Mii>-.  ."id.'i  (Isc.s);  Will-  V.  SicMiii  Nav. 
t'ii..s    N.    V.;;7.")   ils."i;ti:   |>,.ir  v.  New  .li'i-rv  Stciiiii  Nav.  Cn..  II  N.  V. 

IS.'iJS.'ilj;    i\illJ;iiMl  \  .   |li|i-|i|i«n'.  (IJ    N.    \.   171     (,  I '**'"•"')  •      Sec  -ni/- .  (  Mp. 
iV.  s<    IdJ. 

'^  While  V.  Van  KiiU.  -J."!  It.irli.  Ki  (IS.V.):  WCIIf  v.  Mvcr-.  :i  Siiiiilf.  7 
(ISI'.M:  Cox.  V.  l'<'iri>nii.  ;f(i  Ala.  (Ids  (IS.-.7):  NVii\laii(l  v.  Mnsrliy..'i  Ala. 
■i;i»>  ( |st:t) :  |{(iliiMls  V.  Uilcy.  I.">  l.a.  Ann.  Kill  (iMid):  linli:iii;i|i(ilis  itc. 
i;.  ('(1.  V.  Cciniiiy.  i:t  Inil.  .Ms  (Is.V.i) :  (i|i|iciilii'iiiicr  v.  Inilc(l  .smii's 
K\.  Co..  c.'.i  III.  c.J  ( |S7;() :  ,^/^  <  ',i|i.  |\'.  ;;  Ki-J. 

'•  I'cnili.'riuii  ( '.p.  V.  New  Vuik  ( 'ml.  K.  ( 'n..  Idl  .Mas<.  1  II   (|s7d). 

"■'."Suiiilii'i  11  i;\|iii'--  (ci.  \ .  Dick-dii.  ill  f.  s.  ."»r.i  (ls7(l) :  < 'nllcmlcr  v. 
I>iii-nic>r('.  .">."•  \.  Y.  2d  i  i  |s7;ti  :  l.diii:  v.  New  Y<irk  rcni.  U.  C'n..  .'id  N. 
V.  7c>  (ls7J):  l$i'l;:cr  V.  Kisi-iiiiiri'.  ,"il  \.  Y.  Iii(i  (ls7:>).  In  Collcndfr  v. 
I»iii-nic.ic.  sii/ird.  it  \\;i^  >:iltl :  ••Then' arc  c.'isc^  Imlili..';-  in  cfft'ct  lliat  tin- 
piicir  ii('^'i(ii;iiiciii<  ;iiiil  cum n-;iii(in  of  the  pMrtii'-'  can  lie  jrivcn  in  cvi- 
(li'iiiT.  w  lien  ilicic  i-  .'III  ,iinlii::iiiiy.  to  show  in  \\li;il  scn-r  icirticniar 
worcl-  or  |ihra-i'>  were  ii-cd  liy  ilic  |i;Mii('-.  in  niiikiiiL:'  lIu'  conlnift." 
I'iiini;'  >ildiii  v.  Williiini-.  a  Wiiils.  li  (IsllH):  (iiiiy  v.  Il;ii|ii'r.  I  Shiry. 
."•71  js|i,:   Ki.|,ihi,.  V.  I, nil.:'.  .Mfl.iMn.  Jll  ilsiit).     Hut  Kt'inlilc  v.  I. nil 


( 


s^v^'Ttmrnf'^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


c 


/ 


o 


{/ 


.1^ 


V 


wa 


u. 


2e 


1.0 


:.i 


11.25 


ui    Iti 

^   tiS.    12.0 


I 


^IJi^ 


Hiotographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  M580 

(716)  872-4503 


1 


:\ 


i;;4 


TllK  CONTIJAt'TS  OK  CAIMMKns. 


[('II.   ^. 


i!  1 


thill  tlir  iioods  iiiav  be  forwarded  by  Jiny  ciirrici-,  SiC,  cvi- 
d(MU'0  of  a  verbal  direction  niveii  by  tlie  shipper  at  ihe  liiiit^ 
is  iiKuhiiissibh'.'" 

§   114.    h'ffhi  of  Sii/)Si(jii(')if  Dc/ircri/  of  W'n'fiiif/s  IJiiiil- 
in<i  Lialtiliti/. — But  it  shoidd  nevertheless  be  l)()rno  in  mind 
that  upon  tlie  i-eeeipt  of  ^^oods  for  transportation  tlie  liabil- 
ity of  the  eonnnon   carrier  eoniinences,   and   this   liability, 
whether  unconditional  or  partly  (|ualilied,  can  not  be  altei'ed 
by  the  sul)se(|uent  delivery  to  the  customer  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing alterinir  the  contract  as   first    niade.'^     If  one  coutrMcts 
to  send  u'oods  by  a  carrier,  which  he  delivci's  and   l)ays  the 
price  of  caiTiage,  and  afterwards,  and  artei'thc  lioods  have 
been  forwarded,  the  carri(>i"  hands  him   pi'inted  re<'cipts  for 
the  o-oods  containinii'  exceptions  in  his  favor,  and  it  docs  not 
ajipcar  that  the  contents  of  the  i-eceipts  were  made  known  to 
tlu)  bailor  and  assented  to  by  him,  the  former  agreement  will 
not  bo  affected  by  the  receipts,  but  the  liability  (d"  the  carrier 
Avill  remain  as  at  common  law.'-'     In  Boshrick  r.   /io/Z/'i/iorc 
dv'.   Ji'difroatf   CoiiijHiiit/,'-''^    it    was    held    that    where  iioods 
are    shipped     under    a    verbal    aare<'mcnt,    a    delivery    two 
days  thereafter  of    a  bill  of    ladini!'   containinu'  conditions 
Avould  be  ineffectual  to  protect  the  carrier.      In   /////  '•.  *S'//- 
racHsc  ii'c.  lidiJrodtl   x.'odi/hdii/,'-^  the  plaintiff   delivei'cd  to 
the  defendant  a  (luantity  of  wool   upon  a  parol  aii'i'eement 
Avith  an   ag-ent  of   th(>  company   that    it    would  I)e   shipped 
within  two  v.eek.s.      Afterwards,  and  upon  the  same  day, 
receij)ts  were  jriven  to  him  by  which  the  defendant    was  ex- 
empted from  all  liability  ai'isin<>-  from  delay.     The  plaintiff 
did  not  examine  the  receipts,  except  to  see  that  the   weiaht 
was  correct,  and  did  not  notice  the  <'onditions  until  the  next 


ilccidps  iiolliini;  of  tlio  kind.  'I'lic  coiirt  only  rcinirkcil  tlnit  llicrc  \\;is 
no  iinihiiiuily  in  tlic  rontraci  and  lliiil  parol  cvidcnci' wa- iioi  adniis-.ilil<' 
to  ('X|)iain  or  \ary  il. 

'"Hinckley  v.  Xfw  VorkCiMil.  i<:c.  1{.  ('o..  .".(i  N.  V.  Iii'.i  (1S7I). 

'"Shell on  V.  Mereiiants  Di^pateli  Co..  :!('.  \.  Y.    S.(  '.j  .")-J7  (ls7;i). 

'■'Collin  V.  New  York  <'eni.  1{.  (Jo..  CI  ISarl).  ;!7'.i  i  Is7"j). 

•-'"  !.■>  X.  Y.  71-.'  (1S71). 

-'S  Jlim.  -JUii  (lS7il);  reverse<l.  7;i  N.  Y.  :i."il  (ls7S). 


cii.  v.] 


CONTItACTS  AM)    TIIKrU  KFl'ECT. 


laf) 


(l;iy.  Tlio  Suj)romi'  Court  of  New  York,  rclyinjr  on  Ii<»<l- 
iricli  r.  iktICnnoi'c  dv-.  liaHvoad  (.'())tij)(()ii/,"  held  tliiit  tho 
jjiirol  iiurcc'iuciit  was  not  ni('ri>(.'d  in  tlu'  reociptsi  and  that 
tlu!  plaintifr  was  entitled  to  ret-over.  On  appeal  to  the 
Court  of  Ai)peals  this  rulinu"  was  reversed,  the  hitter  court 
distinii'uishiii^'  it  from  llie  liostirirk  caj-e,  on  the  ground  tliat 
so  short  a  time  haviii*,^  ela[)sed  between  the  [)aroI  aji:reement 
and  tlie  delivery  of  the  paper,  they  shouhl  he  eonsitUnvd  as 
parts  of  tlie  same  ti'ansaelion. 

A  carrier  can  not,  after  a  h)ss  has  occurred,  I'estriet  his 
Hal'ilily  hy  siiiiilnj:'  and  (h'liverin<r  a  l)iil  of  Indiiijj:.'-''  There- 
foi'c  a  stipulation  limit inir  the  liahility  of  connnon  carriers, 
contained  in  receipts  for  ijoods  liivcn  by  them  to  the  sender 
of  the  ji'oods,  on  his  rtMpiest,  after  the  loss  of  the  lioods, 
does  not  affect  the  sender's  riulits  ;  nor  are  they  affected  \)\ 
the  fact  that  he  had  recently  been  their  frei.<j,ht  agent,  and 
that  receipts  given  by  iiim  as  such  contained  the  same  stip- 
ulation.-' Ihit  where  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the 
goods  a  simple  receipt,  called  a  shipping  receij)!,  is  given  to 
the  consignor  which  states  that  a  1)111  of  lading  will  be  issued 
at  a  place  designated  therein,  and  that  the?  goods  are  to  bo 


-'■-'I.-)  N.  Y.:i-J  (isvi). 

"' 'I'lif  Kd.viii.  !  Sin'ii.itiic.  Ml  (IS.V.)):  ('icvciaiKl  Ac.  IJ.Co.  v.  I'erkins, 
17  Midi.  'I'M  (]S(iS).  A  sliiitpcr  (Iclivci'cd  a  iiortioii  of  a  qiiaiitily  of 
\\(i(»l  to  a  railroad  comiiaiiy  for  tfaiisportalioii,  the  iiiuli'istaiuliii^  hcinj^ 
lliat  till'  balance  sIkmiM  I)i'  (IclivcrtMl  as  soon  as  tli(>  conipaMy  notiticd 
liiin  that  lii('\  liad  cars  in  wldcli  to  sliij)  it.  'I'liis  tlicy  afterwards  did, 
and  tlic  balance  of  the  wool  was  delivered  to  and  aecei)ied  Ity  Iheni,  iit 
wliicli  lime  llie  sliipper  siiiiied  a  shipping-  request  which  eontaiiieil  cer- 
tain exeniplioMs  in  favor  of  tlie  company.  Some  of  the  wool  haviuf? 
been  lost  before  the  balance  was  shipped  the  exemptions  were  held  not 
to  ajiply  to  that.  Detroit  I've.  J{.  ( d.  v.  Adams,  1.")  .Mich.  .l.")8  (18(17).  A 
jiaekai^e  w;is  delivered  to  a  cairier  at  New  York,  marked  ••  Iowa  City."* 
and  a  receipt  ;iiven  to  the  consignor,  which  entitled  him  to  il  hill  of 
ladinj;-.  Some  days  after,  the  eairier.  knowiiii''  tliat  the  ^tiods  hud  been 
destroyed  //'  tnini^itn  at  ('liica;io.  j:;ave  the  shipjier  a  bill  of  ladinj;'  which 
undertook  to  carry  tiie  package  only  to  ('hica,n<).  //<7(/.  thai  the  bill  of 
ladin;,^  was  of  no  effect  to  rc-triet  the  cairicr's  liability.  Wilde  v.  Mer- 
chants I)i>|iiitcli  Trans.  ( 'o..  -17  Iowa.  217  (ls77). 

-*  Uotl  V.  uiiismore.  Ill  .Mass.  -l.">  (1872). 


41 


h\ 


i 


« 


I 


13() 


THE  CONTRACTS  OK  CAKUIEItS. 


[Cll.   V 


I 


I 


m 


tninsportcd  subject  to  the  coiulitlons  expressed  in  the  hill  of 
hidinir,  tlie  hivter  in  the  ahsenee  of  fpiiud  hinds  tlie  con- 
si<>nor. '*'•''  In  a  case  of  this  kind  the  court  said:  "It  flhe 
receipt]  advises  the  consiunor  Avlicre  lo  apply  for  hills  of 
latlinir,  and  provides  that  the  merchandise  is  lo  !)(•  for- 
warded suhject  to  the  conditions  contained  in  the  l)ill  of 
hulinir,  to  the  point  to  which  the  hills  of  iadiui:-  would  he 
iriven.  The  consignors  were  notilicd  that  the  contract  was 
not  the  one  which  the  law  would  imply  from  the  simple  de- 
livery and  recci[)t  of  the  merchandise,  hut  that  it  was  to  !)e 
such  an  one  as  should  afterwards  he  cmhodied  in  a  printed 
and  written  hill  of  ladiniz'.  'i'he  consiii'uois  miiiht  ha\c  pro- 
cured the  hill  of  ladinu"  Ixforc  the  i^oods  were  shipped,  or 
miirht  have  directed  lliiM  the  a'oods  he  not  moved  until  the 
hill  of  hidinu' had  been  procured.  Then  if  the  tci'ms  con- 
tained in  the  hiil  of  ladinu'  were  nn-^ati.-lactorv  or  wei'c  not 
assented  to,  they  mitiht  refuse  to  make  the  siiij)ment .  Hut 
havinii:  permitted  the  iioods  to  p)  forwai'd  under  an  ai^ree- 
ment  that  the  tei'ins  of  shipment  should  he  contained  in  a 
hill  of  lading",  they  *  *  nuist  hi'  hound  hy  whatever 
terms  are  in  iiood  faith  inserted  in  the  hill  of  ladiui:'/" 

§  11').  Coihitt-ral  AiP'i'i'Uicnt  ov  iSiipplciiK'tifari/  ('(nifrdcl 
May  he  ^S/ioini. — Hut  thouiih  parol  evidence  is  not  a<lmissi- 
hle  to  contradict  a  hill  of  ladin<r,  yet  it  is  adniissi!)le  to 
prove  a  collateral  a_irreement,  such  as  that  the  earlier  aiirecd 
to  carry  the  uoods  to  a  point  beyond  that  named  in  the  l)ill 
of  hidinir.'^"  In  an  Knirlish  case,^'  A  had  arranurcd  orally  with 
a  railway  eomi)any  to  carry  iroods  f(,r  him  to  K,  on  their 
line,  Jind  thence  l)y  a  coiinectinir  line  to  K;  and  at  the 
same  time  si^iu'd,  without  noticinir  its  contents,  a  consiiiii- 
mcnt  note  by  which  the  uoods  were  directed  to  he  taken  to 
E.  Parol  evidence  was  admitted  to  show  an  airreenient  to 
earr}'  on  to  K.  Hut  jiarol  evidence  is  not  admissible  to 
prove  that  the  carrier  is  not  a  carrier  for  the  whole  distance 

^''  Wilde  V.  MiTchimls  Dispjitcli  Trans.  Co..  -17  Iowa.  '272  (1S77). 
^'Baltiinorc  tScc.  Stcaiiiboat  Cd.  v.  Urowii.  .">!  I'a.  St.  77  (KSi!7). 
'-'^ Malpas  v.  Lomloii  itc.  K.  Co.,  L.  !{..  1  C.  T.  oMi  (ISW). 


CH.   v.] 


CO.NTKACTS  AM)  TIIKIII  KrFKCT. 


137 


stated  ill  Iiis  l)ill  of  liidiiiii'.-'^  And  where  a  fieiulit  1)111  does 
not  appear  on  its  faee  to  lie  Ww  eoiitract  of  a  railroad  coni- 
l)any,  i)arol  evidence  is  not  adniissil)le  to  show  that  it  is  the 
contract  of  the  comijanv.'-"' 

§  IK).  Ollicv  (Utscs  Wlio-c  /'(iri'/  Erldcnc'  AihutHKible 
—  Framl — Mlslaki' — Diirfss. — 'I'h*'  hailor  may,  of  course, 
show,  not withstandinir  the  jxjsscssion  by  him  of  the  carrier's 
receipt,  tiiat  hv  never,  in  fact,  accepted  the  paper  as  a 
contract  hindini:'  lietnccn  himself  and  llie  carriei-. '''"  In 
a  very  hite  <'asi'  in  Illinois,  th(>  receipt  of  an  exjjress 
compar.v  contained  a  c:indili<)n  tliiit  if  the  value  of  the 
irood;  sci'.t  wci'ciiot  stated  the  carrier  w  >  udd  not  !»e  liahUi 
i'oi'  (i\('i'  $."ili.  Three  pacl-iau'cs  of  expensi\-e  fur.-,  were  de- 
livcind  hy  the  shipiM'r  to  ',he  coinpan\  without  anythinij; 
lieinu"  said  aliout  tiie  value,  a.nd  ucre  <lcsfro;,ed  l>v  lire  in 
transit.  To  overt  ne  this  clause  in  the  receipt,  the  plain- 
tilT  on  tiie  trial  otu'red  evidence  to  prove  that  the  conii)any, 
tiii'nuiih  its  aLi'ents,  had  solicited  his  patronau'c  on  the  same 
tci'nis  as  other  companies,  vi/.,  that  the  u'oods  in  Avhich  he 
dealt  shoidd  l»e  taken  on  n(»n-valuation  rati's,  which  offer  tlie 
court  rejected,  'i'iiis  rulinu"  was  rcvi'rsed  on  appeal.  "It 
Avas,"  said  S'ott,  ,].,  "  most  important  evidence,  tendinj^ 
to  show  why  no  valuation  was  slated.  If  not  re(pnred  to 
do  so  by  express  conti'act  with  defendant,  or  hythe  uniform 
course  of  business  with  defendant  and  other  carriers,  then 
tlie  i)laintiffs  were  not  bound  in  the  tirst  instance,  unless  in- 

»<Cli(imciUix  V.  Lcecli.  IS  I':i.  St.  "Jlit  (IS.Vi). 

-I'Dixoii  v.  (.'()hiiiil)us  Ac.  H.( '<)..•!  Hiss.  i;{7  (1S(;S). 

■"'IJoomiun  v.  Aincrii'Mii  Kx.  ("o..  "Jl  Wis.  152  (ISiK!):  Stvoliuv.  Detroit 
&c.  K.  Co.,  -Jl  Wis.  .■).-)(  (1S(;7) ;  Kiii<r  y.  AVoodljriil.^-c,  :!1  Vt.  no.")  (]8(;i). 
I'lirtii's  doiiiu:  l)usiiu'ss  as  forwiinlcrs  and  also  as  oarriors,  ajirrcod  orally 
with  till' owiii'is  to  traiis|)(irt  iiicrciiaiidisc  to  be  dt'livcfcd  to  tlu'Ui  from 
time  to  tiiiir;  and  siilisiMHiciitly.  on  receiving;'  a  portion  tlicrt'oi' to  be 
transported  nndcf  tliis  ai^reeini'iit.  they  j;;ave  a  receipt,  slat in<j  that  th« 
same  was  reeeixcd  to  l)e  I'orw  ai'ded.  I[i  hi.  that  they  wei'e  i-esponsilile  as 
eari'iers  and  not  as  l'(H'\\ai(Iei's.  'I'lie  icveiia  did  not  exclude  evidence  of 
tiie  a<!:reenient  under  which  it  was  niven.  and  tii'' woi'ds  "to  be  forward- 
ed," should  not.  in  siieh  ea>e.  b  ■  eoiistrned  in  a  t 'clinical  seii^e.  JJlossoni 
V.  Gritlin,  lU  N.  Y.  nci)  (is.-)i;). 


ia« 


THE  CONTI£ACT8  OF  CAIMMKlCS. 


[cn.  V. 


r-      sm 


I     • 


quired  of  conccrniiij;  tlic  actual  value  of  the  uoods,  to  state 
anv  valuation.  The  teslinioiiy  excluded  was  important  for 
another  reason,  as  tendinji'  to  show  why  neither  party  paid 
any  attention  to  the  limilation  clause  in  the  icceipt  taken 
for  the  iroods.  (  n  the  under.standinu'  such  iioods  as  the 
plaintiffs  were  shipi)in«i!;  were  to  I)e  and  had  heen  received 
and  carried  at  non-valuation  rales,  neither  i)arty  was  inter- 
(>sted  to  consider  tlie  limitation  clause.  It  was  evidence,  to 
say  the  least  of  it,  that  tends  to  sliow  that  neither  jjarty 
attached  any  importance  to  thai  clause  in  the  receipt."  " 

Fraud  and  mistake  may  also  ,»e  sliowi.'-  A\'hei'e  the 
slii[)per  of  p)ods  who  has  previou>iy  entered  into  an  oral 
uirreement  with  a  common  carrier,  takes  a  I'cceipt  for  tin; 
same,  he  has  a  I'iuht  to  assume,  in  the  sihsence  of  notice  to 
the  eontriiry,  that  his  agreement  is  cnil)i'aced  in  the  pa])(>r 
or  receipt,  or  at  leas  that  his  i'ecei[)t  contains  nothinii;  to 
the  contrary;  antl  it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  fraud  on  tlu>  |)art 
of  the  carrier  havinjr  entered  into  su«'h  oral  agreement,  to 
insert  in  the  receipt  a  contract  of  an  entirely  different  char- 
acter, and  present  it  to  the  shipper,  without  callin;:,'  his  no- 
tice to  it  or  lic'tting  his  assent.''  in  an  KuiiHsh  ea.-i'  the 
l)laintiff  at  the  time  the  jroods  were  deliveri'd  at  the  defend- 
ant's warehouse,  heini!:  asked  hy  a  clerk  to  si^n  a  paper,  ex- 
pressed his  unwilliniiness  to  do  so,  because  he  could  not  see 
to  read  it,  whereupon  the  clerk  said  it  was  of  no  conse- 
(juence  and  that  the  si<>i;'!ture  was  a  mere  matter  of  form. 
The  plaintiff  relying  upon  these  assui-ances  signed  it,  l)ut  it 
turned  out  to  he  a  contrai-t  limiting  the  defendant's  lialiility. 
It  was  held  by  the  Court  of  Common  l*leas  that  the  jjlaintiff 
was  not  bound.''  As  a  common  carrier  can  not  coerce  th(! 
owner  to  yield  assent   to  a  limitation   of  rt'sponsibility   by 

"'Rortkowitz  V.  A(l:uiis  IOxijit-js  Co.,  !)  Cciil.  I,.  .1.  :JS!1  (lS7i)). 

'"-'I'lio  Wisroiisiii  V.  Yoiui;;'.  :i(i.  (iivciic.  JCS  (IS.")!)  ;  Meyer  v.  Teck,  28 
X.  Y.  .V.Mt  (ISIM);  CoUemler  v.  Dinsmore. ."».".  X.  Y.  :>()()  (is;;!);  Ldiii^  v. 
Xew  York  ('cm.  II.  ("o..  ."iO  N.  Y.  7'i  (l>!7:2);  I{el.ii,'er  v.  Diu-inor.',  51 
X.  Y.  KiC)  (1S72);  Ail:iins  Express  Co.  v.  (iiilliric.  ii  liiisii.  7S  (is7-Jj. 

■■"Stroiiii  V.  D-troil  iS:e.  ii.  Co..  -Jl  Wi^.  TmI  (ISi;7). 

"^  Simniisv.  Great  U'esterii  |{.  Co..  2  C.  15.  (N.  S.)  i'di)  (lS."i7). 


<'II.   V 


CONTKACTS  AM)  TIIKlIi  EKKKCT. 


l.ill 


iniikiiiir  cxorhitiiiit  cliiirjjfcs  when  his  assent  is  refused  to  ii 
coiulitioii  liinitiiiir  llic  ireiiei'iil  liahility  of  tlic  carrier,'''  it 
has  I)eeii  said  in  one  <'ase  tlial  wliere  tliere  exists  an  extra- 
ordinary necessity  for  tlie  innne(hate  transjxn-ialion  of 
LToods  and  tiie  cari'iei"  refuses  lo  lake  tlicni  except  unih'r  a 
speciid  conti'act,  liie  exact  ion  of  siieh  a  contract  ouiilit  not 
to  he  sanctioned — sucii  unreasonahle  extortion  I)ein<i' e(|uiva- 
icut  to  (hiress.'"  Xo  court  has  as  yet  Lione  tlJs  fai'  in 
pi'otectinu"  tlie  puldic  against  tiie  exactions  of  connnon  car- 
j'ici's. 

Hut  it  seems  ch'ar.  under  llie  rule  laid  (h)\vn  in  tliesi! 
cases  lliat  llie  contract  to  l)e  l)iM(hni:'  on  the  sliipper  nnist 
he  entered  into  undei'slan(hn,uly,  tliat  it  would  t)e  conipctt'iit 
for  the  latter  to  sliow  that  a  limilini:'  clause  in  a  rcc('ii)t  or 
other  paper  was  left  in  hy  mistake.'^  The  case  of  ^Idai/i.'^ 
/'J.rpi'CKs  ('oiiijHiii!/  r,  .Voc/,','"' decided  l)y  the  Court  of  Ap- 
])eals  of  Kentucky  in  1. "<(!(!,  supports  tliis  view.  'J'here  an 
au'cnt  of  the  consiiiiioi-  delivi'rcd  to  a  connnon  carrier's 
ajiont  jxoods  foi-  transportation,  and  tilled  a  hlank  in  a 
printed  receipt  prepared  hy  the  carrier,  stipulatinu'  au'ainst 
liahility  heyond  the  sum  of  $.')(),  the  wrillcn  part  mer(!ly 
ilcscrihiuLT  the  articles  and  their  value,  and  naminu'  the  con- 
.siiTuor  and  consiiiiiee  and  place  of  ultimate  delivery,  l)ut  at 
the  tinu'  of  so  lillinn-  ncitlicr  I'cad  nor  understood  the  condi- 
tions of  the  receipt,  nor  siiiiied  anv  printetl  indorsement 
acUnowlediiinjr  acceptance  of  the  conditions,  and  tlu^  con- 
siirnor  nevei"  saw  the  recci))!  until  theuoods  were  lost.  The 
i'ourt  held  that  the  consignor's  au'enl  was  a   competent  wit- 

•■'■"■  \V:ill:icf  V.  M:itllM'\vs.;{!l  (Jm.  (117  dSC'.l). 

■"''  A(l;iin<  I']x|ircs>  ('o.  v.  Nock.  2  Diiv.  '>i'>2  (ISIH!).  It  i^  siiidiii  ii  Coii- 
iiccliciil  cMsc  tli;it  llic  fuel  lliMl  llic  sliiiijicrs  liiid  c'iii-imI  bills  (if  liulinij  to 
lif  priiilcil  for  llicji'  o\\  II  I'oiivciru'iic'c.  mikI  Ii;i(i  Iiccm  in  the  li;il)il  of  lilliiii;' 
iqi  lil;iiiks  for  lliciiisclvc-i  iiiid  tlicii  sciiiliii;^  lliciii  to  llic  ciuricrV  .•lii'ciii  to 
sitrn.  would  ciiliii'  dls|iro\c  tlic  plci  of  coii^iiiNioii  in  olMMiiiiii;;' iIk'  ;is- 
sciii  to  till' coiiditioiis.  i,;i\\  rciici'  v.  Nr\v  \ork  iSic.  H.  Co..  ;!i)  ( 'oiiii.  Ii:? 
(|s(;!)). 

•'•■  ( 'hoiiicniix  V.  I.i'cch.  is  i';i.  St.  'JJI  iis:,2):  Wnnlrii  v.  (Jricr.  li 
Wiiits.  (21  (l.s.{7). 

•■'■'*  2  Duv,  ,")(;2. 


I 


i 


iU 


--^v;   -^iiiMiittiiiiilBij '" 


140 


TIIK  CONTliACTS  (tr  CAKIMKKS. 


[(■II.   V. 


.1, 


lu'ss  to  prove  tliiil  he  did  not  icud  or  midcrstand,  and  did 
not  iU'ccpt  the  condition  liiuitinir  the  ciiiTicr's  lial)ilit;v,  uiid 
ill  the  al)si'iic('  of  such  full  and  complete  understandiuir  and 
acce[)taiice,  tlie  carriers  were  lial)le  for  a  loss  of  the  i^oods 
to  their  fidl  value. 

§  117.  'I'/ic  rJiKiilsh  "'■  I'liHirdi/  (iikI  ('(Iiki/  Tnijfir  Acf." 
—  The  Enji'lish  statute  known  as  the  '•  lJail\va\'  and  Canal 
TraiHc  Act,""  '■' and  nliich  has  already  hci-n  referred  to,  makes 
notices  l)_v  railway  and  canal  companies,  liniitini:-  their  lia- 
l»ilit\'  as  carriers,  void  :  l)ut  it  does  not  prevent  them  from 
enterinu'  into  spe<'ial  contract-;  foi"  llie  cai'i'iai:'e  of  i^oods, 
j)rovide(l  the  condition-  c(intaine(l  in  >ucli  conir:ict  are  such 
as  lire  held  "  ju--t  and  re:i<onal)ir  ""  hy  l!ie  judp'  or  court 
hefoi'c  whom  an\'  (|n;'>tion  I'chitini:'  ihci'cto  i-  trie(|,  and  pi'o- 
vided  tile  conlracl  is  siLjiied  !>y  the  party  dcliverlni:'  the 
<j;e.)ds  to  he  cariied.  Il  seems  that  a  contract  jirliini  fatlt' 
unjust  and  unreasonai>le.  Ix'comes  "just  and  I'casonalile  " 
if  an  alternative  is  left  to  the  pai'ly  forwai-dini;'  or  dclivei- 
inir  the  u'oods  to  enter  into  a  contra<-l  wliich  is  "ju>t  and 
I'casonahle."  ^"  The  <|uestion  as  to  what  are  to  he  (()ns!(h'i'ed 
as  "just  and  reasonahle  "'  conditi(uis,  as  these  words  !»i-e 
here  used,  has  been  before  the  Hniilish  courls  in  mnnei'ous 
cases. 

§  lis,  '•'■  Jitsf  (tiiil  lit'dxondhlc"  (  'oiiilithhiK. — I'lidel'  this 
statute  the  followinji"  conditions  have  heen  held  to  i>e  "■  just, 
and  reasonable,"  and  thei'ef(»i'e  within  the  power  of  carriers 
of  this  class  to  impose  u|)on  their  custrMMcrs  by  special  con- 
tract :  That  "  no  claim  for  damaire  will  be  allowed  uide;-s 
made  within  threi'  days  after  the  delivery  of  the  jioods,  nor 
for  loss  uidess  made  within  three  days  aftei-  they  should 
have  been  delivei'cd  ;""  "  that  in  the  case  (d'  li'oods  conveyi'd 
at  special  or  mileage  rates  the  company  will  not   be  respon- 


■^'  17  iiiid  IS  Vic.  eh.  ;!1.  §  7.     Sec  auto.  Cap.  II.  <;  -27. 

^   (;all:i,:;licr  V.  (ircat  Western  H.  Co..  S  Ir.  ('.  F>.  (N.  S.)   :'.-J(l  (is7l). 

'•  Simons  V.  (;i-eat  Wesleril  \{.  Co..  IS  C.  15.  s(ir>  (IS.")!;);  Lewis  v. 
(ireat  Western  \l.  Co..  .")  II.  iV:  X.8(;7  (IsdO).  jjiil  see  (iarton  v.  Hijstol 
Ae.  it.  Co..  I  IJ.  &  S.  112  (lS(il)./K.r  Coekhiirii.  C.  .1. 


cir.  v.] 


CONTItACTS  AM)  TIIKII!  KKl'KCT. 


in 


sihK'  for  any  loss  or  (liiui!i_<j;o  liowcvcr  cjuiscd  ; '•'  (Iml  "in 
rcspt'C'l    of  jioods  destined    for  places   lieyoiid  the   limits  of 
the  eonipanv's  riiilway,  and  as  respects  the  company,  tlieii' 
rcsponsiliilit V  will   cease   when   snch   i^oods   shall    Iitive    been 
delivered   over  to  another  cai'riei-  in   the   usual    cours(>   for 
further  conveyance;"''  that    lish    would   only  he    couveyeil 
Itv  a  railwav  I'V  spci'ial   agreement    liy  piirlicular  trains,  and 
that  the  si'uder  should  siii-nthe  fojldwini:'  conditions;   "  The 
companv  shall  not  he   respousihle   und(  r  any  circumstances, 
f(ir  loss  of  market,  or  for  other  loss  or  inj(n'y  ai-isinir  froui 
delay,  or  detention  of  train,  exposure  to  weather,  stowage, 
or    from   anv  cause   whatever  olhci'  than    u'ro>s    lu'iilect,    or 
fi'aud  ;"  "  that  "the  company  will  not  l)e  respoii,-,il)le  for  any 
damau'c  to  any  meat  on  the  !i,"r(tund  of  loss  of  mai'ket,  jji'o- 
vided  the  >ame  he  delivi-red  within   a   rcasouahle  tiuu'  after 
the  arrival  thereof  ;" '■'  that   horses  shall    he   carrieil  at.  tho 
owner's  risk."'     A  contract  to  carry  »•  at  owner's   risk"   is 
not  unreasonahle  whci'e  a  <'arrier  offers  to  carry  in  this  way 
for    a    le>s   price   than    where    he    insures;    that    fact    heinu" 
known  to  tin'  employer.    The  carrier  would  still  he  lia!)le  foi- 
misconiluct  :  hut   the  jiackinu'  of  Li'oods    hy   his   servants   in 
such  a  manner  as  to  cause  their  injury  would  not  l)e  miscon- 
duct,   unless    the    servants   knew    that    iiijuiw    wouhl   result 
from   the  manner  of  packiii,!:'.''      A  party  sent    cattle    uiiiler 
the  care  of  a  drover,  to  I)e  carried  Ity  railway.      .\t  the  time 
of  receivin<i:  the  cattle  the  drover  siLined  a  note  ])resented  to 
him  l)v  the  company,  containinu,"  the  followin;j,'  stipulation: 


■•-'  Siiiiuii-  V.  (Ircnt  Wc-tcni  K.  Co..  is  ('.   I',.  SIC)  (Is.Vi). 

••■'  Al.lri(l:;v  v.  CwM  ^V(■st('^ll  |{.  Co.,  l."i  C.  15.  (N.  S./ .•)S2  (ISCl"). 

^'  l'.r;il  V.  Soiitli  Devon  1{.  Co..  W  II.  \  c.  ;!;i7  (iSC)!):  .")  11.  i<:  N.  x~:> 
(isdd):   \\U\\<-   V.  r,vr:\{  \V.'«lcni  U.  Co..  -'  C.  15.  (.\.S.)  7  (1S.")7). 

<■■  I.onl  V.  Midhiuil  U.  Co.  I..  li.  'l  C.  P.  lilil)  (\Si'u). 

"'•  .MrCaiicc  V.  l.oiiiloii  \f.  1\.  Co..  7  II.  >S;  X.  -177  (ISIH");  Caimcll  v. 
Foril.  .")  I..  T.  (\.  S.)  (!l)l.  (},.  15.  (IMII)  ;  Harrison  v.  Loinloii  Ac.  R.  Co.. 
•1  15.  I'i  S.  \-2  (ISCO) :  \Vi<i'  V.  (Jrcal  Western  U.  (  o..  1  II.  ^t  \.  Oli  (IS.")!)) : 
Kol.insoii  V.  (ircMl  W.'stiTii    U.  Co..    11   W.    K.   -JIm;.    :!r.    I..  ,F.C.    P.   ]-S.\ 

(isd.-)). 

<"  I.fwi-  V.  (iival  West. Til  H.  Co..  I,.  H    :!  q.  15.  i)    liio   (1S77). 


P 
^ 


'i 


k 


M  ^  ■■ 


W'J 


Tin:  CONIItACTS  or  CAIMMKI.'S. 


[('II.    V. 


,    Si 


•w 


"  Tlic  compiiiiv  is  to  ln'  Ih'I(I  fVcc  from  all   risk  or  rcsponsi- 
hilitv  ill  respect    of  any  loss  or  daniai'-e  arisiiio-  in  the  load- 
\\\'j:  oi'  iinloadiiii:'.  from  siitToealion  or  from  Iteiiiii'  trampled 
{»n.   hriiised  or  otherwise   injured   in    transit,    from   lire,  or 
from  am'  other  cause  whatsoever.     The  company  is  not    to 
he  held  respoiisi!)le  f  )r  carriauH'  or  (U-livery  within  any  cer- 
laiii  or  definite  lime,  nor  in   time  for  any  particular  mar- 
ket."     'I"he  company  li'ave  the  drover  a    free  |)ass   lo   travel 
with  the  train.     'I'he  t-attle  were  not  put  into  the  truck  uxmI 
for  the  carriaii'eof  cattle,  l)Ut  into  two  vans  u>cd  for  the  car- 
riau"e  of  ^oods,  which   were   entirely  <'lose(|   on    evei'y  side, 
and  could  only  he  opened   hy  a   s.irl   of  lid  or  slide,     'I'hc 
drover  saw    all   this  aiul  did   not    complain,  and   the   train 
started  with  the  cattle  in   these   vans,  and   the   (lr(»ver   in   a 
railway  carriau'e.     ( )ii  arrivinn' at  thi!  end  of  the  journey  it 
was  found  that  the  lid  of  one  of   the  vans  had  for  some  un- 
ascertained cause  heeii  closed,  and  on   openiliij:   it  some  of 
the  cattle  wore  found  siiff(»cateii  and  others  much  injured. 
Those  in  the  other  van  where  tlu'  lid  remained  open   arrived 
safe.     The  stipulation  was  considered   by  the  court  a  "just, 
and  reasonahle  "  condition. ^"^ 

§  111).  t'(>ti(lifii)iif<  \()f  ^'Jiisf  (111(1  I/cdsoiKihfc." — A  con- 
trary conclusion  has  hecn  reached  hy  the  Knulish  courts  re- 
gardinii:  conditions  of  this  character:  That  a  railway  com- 
pany conveyinji'  cattle  shall  he  exempt  from  liability  for  loss 
however  occasioned  :"'  that  the  company  will  not  he  ae- 
('ountal)le  for  the  "  loss,"  detention  or  damau'c  of  any  pack- 
a<ji'  insutKciently  or  improperly  packed;''"  that  the  conii)any 
is  to  he  free  from  all  responsibility  whatever;'''  that  the 
carrier  in  th(^  carriaire  of  cattle  '  •  is  to  be  frei^  from  all  risk 
and  responsibility  with  resi>ect  to  any  loss  or  damaire  arisiui;" 


+'*L'iir(litij,'t(.ii  V.  South  Wales  J{.  Co..  1  ll.it  \.:{!)2;  -J  .Fur.  (\.S.) 
1210  (\s:>r,). 

*■'  J{(iotli  V.  Xortli  Kustcrii  H.  ("«>..  L.  H.  •>  Kx.  17;{  (ISd?). 

*"  Siinntis  V.  (ircaf  Western  II.  Co..  IS  C.  15.  SO.')  (IS.VI; ;  (jartoii  v.  IJris- 
tol  &v.  11.  C<  ..  1  15.  its.  112  (ISdl). 

•"''  (JivM-oi-y  V.  Wc<;  Mlillaihl  K.  Co.  2  11.  it  C.  !»44  (ISIM). 


i 


(11.  v.] 


(•()NTI!A(TS  AM)  TIIKIK   r.llKCT. 


ill  the  loiidiiii;"  or  \iiilt)!i(IiiiL'',  from  siilTocMtioii  or  from  liciii^ 
lr:im|)l('(l  upon,  liniiscd  or  otlicrwisc  injured  in  tli(^  traiisil, 
from  tire  oi-  from  aiiv  oilier  eiiiise  wlial soever ;" ''•'  that  tli«^ 
owner  of  eallle  is  to  see  lo  (he  ellieieiiev  of  the  waLi'ons  lie- 
fore  liis  stock  is  placed  liiereiii,  eoin|»lainl  (o  he  made  in 
wrilinjx  to  the  eompaiiN  "s  ollieer  l»efore  lh(^  wau'cm  leaves  the 
station  ;"'  (hat  a  railway  eompany  is  (o  I)e  free  from  any  iii- 
jiiiT  however  caused  to  eatth'  cari'ied  l)y  them  in  eoiise(|uene(^ 
(d'  over-carriajje,  detenJion  or  dehiy,  even  thouu'h  the  I'ate 
chai'ji'ed  for  earria^^c  is  reduee(|  (he  sum  ordinarily  demand- 
ed ;'*'tha(  a  railroad  eompany  for\vardin<;  •ji'ood.H  beyond  its 
lines  in  vessels  owiK'd  and  employed  l>y  if  should  not  he  I'e- 
sponsilile  for  any  defauH  or  neulii;-ence  of  (he  mas(er  or  any 
of  the  olHcers  or  crews  of  the  comi)any's  vessels/''  A  cus- 
(omei',  on  delivi'rinjJT  some  horses  (o  be  carrie*!  by  a  railway 
company,  sitnied  a  ticket ,  on  which  was  (he  foll()win<>'  mem- 
orandum :  "This  (icUe(  is  issued,  subjee(  to  the  owner's 
undei'taUini""  all  risks  of  conveyance,  loadinji'  and  indoadinj^ 
w  hatsoever,  as  the  company  will  not  be  responsible  for  any 
injury  or  damage,  howsoc'ver  caused,  occurring'  to  live  stock 
of  any  description,  (ravelin;^  upon  the  railway,  or  in  their 
vehicles."  This  it  was  ruled  was  no(  a  "just  and  reasonable"' 
(•((iidition,  ami  that  the  (ruck  in  which  the  h  irses  Mere  con- 
veyed heim:;  defective,  and  the  horses  havinj^  in  tlio  course 
of  the  journey  knocked  a  hole  in  it,  by  means  of  which 
they  injured  (hemselves,  (he  co)ni)any  was  lialdo.'""  .Vn 
owner  of  sonu'  marble  chimney  jjieces  desired  to  send  them 
to  London.  Messaires  and  notes  passed  between  him  and 
(lie  aji'ent  of  the  railway  com|)any,  on  the  subject  of  tlio 
terms  on  which  they  were  to  be  carried.     'I'he  agent  stated 

■'•-  (irt'i^ory  v.  West  Midliitid   II.  Co..  paxt. 

■''•'(;rc,i;i>ry  v.  Wi'sl  Miilliiiid  K.  <'(>..  'J  II.  it  ('.  !M  1 :  10  .hir.  \.  S.  -IV.',: 
:i.!  L.  J.  lOxcli.  Cli.  ir).-.:   12  W.  U.  r)2S  (ISOl). 

■■■•  Allduy  V.  (iicat  W.'sttTu  K.  ('()...">  15.  A  S.  !)(>:!;  11  Jiir.  (X.  S.)  12 
(ISC)  I). 

■'■•'■  Doelaii  V.  Director-   cV;c.    MiiUaiid   K.  Co.,    I..   1{.  2  Al>p.   ('as.    7'.)2 

(I'^^r?). 

■•■'  MrMaiius  V.  I.aiirashiiv.  I'ic.  li.  Co..  i  II.  i.t  \.  ;!27 :  :>  .)ur..  (\.  S.j 


i  1 


Tin:  (•()MI!.\<   rs  ()|-  CAlilJII'.KS, 


[cm.  V 


mi 


as  ii  coiidititiii  tlial  llic  conipiiiiv  uoiiM  not  Ik-  rc.-poiisihlc 
Tiir  <i(i()(ls  sent  l»\'  iIk'  I'ailwiiv  unless  lln-ir  \;iliic  was  »|(>- 
clanMl,  and  (ln'V  were  "hi-'Iii'imI,  llic  rate  of  iiisiiraiic;'  liciii'j: 
lixctl  al  10  per  <'i'iil .  <tii  llic  (Icclait'd  value.  Al'lcl'  sonic 
(Iclav  llic  aji'cnl  rcct'lvcd  a  note  rc(|ii('siint:-  liiat  liu-  niarl)lrs 
inijilit  I'ortliuilli  In'  sent  lo  Loudon,  "not  InNUird  ;"  llnv 
were  sent,  and  -ulTfi'i'd  daiiiaui-.  It  was  licld  hv  tin'  lionet' 
of  l.ofd-',  rfvcrsin;:'  tlir  dcci.-ion  (d'  the  lower  coiii'l ,  that 
tlic  condition  tinis  soiij^Iit  i»  lie  imposed  hy  tlie  company 
was  not  "ju-t  and  i-easonaMe.  "  ■■  In  an  iii^li  case  ■'■'  a  railway 
company  had  introduced  into  a  special  conlraet  for  the  e(»n- 
ve\ance  of  iiorse.s  al  a  low  I'ale,  a  condition  exempting 
lliemselves  from  all  lialiility  in  respcet  to  the  hor.sos, 
whether  in  tin-  loailinii"  or  uidoadinu',  <>r  in  transit  and  eon- 
vi-yance,  or  \\hiUt  in  the  company's  vehicles  or  on  their 
pn-miscs.  'I'he  court  decided  that  this  was  unjust  and  un- 
reas(uial)le,  and  could  not  lie  aided  hy  an  alternative  eondi- 
lion,  whereiiy  th<'  company  olTei'cd  to  »Mintlei'take  the 
ri>k  of  con\'eyance  only,  in  consideration  of  an  additional 
payuM'Ut  of  -I'  per  cent,  on  the  low  rate  of  charuic,  hut 
refused  lo  cnteilain  any  claim  I'oi'  damaiic  sustained  l»y  any 
animal  conveyed  at  sucii  additional  rate,  unless  the  injui'V 
was  .slated  and  pointed  out  t<i  tlie  eompanv's  aiicnt  at  the 
time  of  unloadinu' ;"  that  condition  al>o  lieinii'  unjust,  and 
unreasonaMe. 

§  1-0.  ('(iiiiiltliiiiK  Sushi! ii<'(h  1,1/  ihi'  AiiK'i'icii ii  ('iiiir's. — 
In  the  I'liited  State-  a  condillon  commonly  insertdi  li\-  com- 
mon carriers  in  tlieii'  contract.^  relates  to  the  time  and  man- 
ner of  presentini:' claims  for  (himaircs  ;  and  the  courts  have 
lieen  lihcral  in  siistaininii'  such  rcizulalions.  In  /■Jx/nyss 
('ot/ip(tiii/  r.  ('(//:/ ir< //;■'' \{  w'Ms  lii'Id  livlhc  Supreme  Court 
of  the  I'liited  Slate-;  that  a  condition  imposed  hy  an  express 


•cr>i  (is.-.!)). 

•'"  IVolvV.  Xm-lii  Stiit'l'orilsliin'  R.  Co..  iO  II.  I..  Cii-^.  17:!:  li.tiir.  (\.  S.) 
1)14(1802). 
^•*  r.Ioyd  V.  Wiiiorfoi'd  iV:c.  IJ.  C...  IT)  !r.  ( '.  ]..  ^X.  S.j  ;!7  (tsi;.>j. 
■"•■'21  Willi.  -Jfil  (is;  I). 


CM.  V 


(•f)NTI!.\(TS  AND    rilKIK   I'.III'.CT. 


(•(iiii|i;iiiy  IIkU  il  ^\\:\\\  ikM   Itf  li.-ihlc   for  iiny  l()s.>  or  (limuiirt' 
to    !i    |);icU;iL2('    \li)lt'ss    cliiim    llicri'fol'   >li;ill    lie    iiiiidc    uilliiii 
iiiiM'ly  (liiys  from  llic  lime  of   its  I't'ccipt  l>y  the  coiiipaiiN,  is 
liiw  fill  Mild  liitidiiiu-,  ;md  is  not  iiiircusonahlc   where  the  tiiiKi 
for  the  IrMiisjt  of   llie  |);i(k!iL!('  is  oidv  one  (hiv.      The  eliiiin 
should  l)e  made  within  llie   niiiely  days,  hut   suit  iiitiy  after- 
warch  lie  hi'onL;'lil  al  any  lime  wilhin  the  period  of    IJie  stal- 
ule  <d'   rnnilalioii<.     In  a  ease  deeidecl  hy  the  Supl'eii.e  Court 
of   Alal)ama  in  |S7(»,  a  receipt  ^dveii  liy  an  express  <'ompMn\- 
eoiitained  a  eondition  that   tlie  company  should  not  lie  lialiU; 
for  any  loss,  unless  a  claim  therefor  should  he  made   within 
thirty  days  from  the  date   of  the  r(-cei|)t.      In  a  suit  airainst 
the  company  it  appeared  that  the  plaintiff  was  not  awai-e  of 
the  loss  of   the  uoods  until  a  year  after  the  date   of    the  re- 
ceipt.     It  was  held  (hat  the  plaintiff  was   not    lioiiiid   hv  tin? 
limitation  contained  in  the   receipt.  The   court  said:   "  Ho 
[the  carrier]  can  not  lie  allowed  to   make  a  statute  of  limi- 
tations so  short  as  to  he  eapaltle   of  hecominu'  a  means   of 
fraud.     Thill  \'  dass  miuht  ela|)se  befon?  tlu*  eonsiyfnee  he- 
came  aware  that  aiiythini:'  had  lieen  consiu-ned  to  him,  espe- 
cially   if  he   was  absent   from  home."  ""      Uiit    in    /'Jxpreftft 
( '(nil pn nil  r.  ( 'iihlirrll  this  ease  was  criticised.   Jt  is  then;  .said 
by  Mr.  Jiisti<'e  Stkonm;  :   "  This  ease  is  a  very  unsalisfactorv 
one.    Il  appears  to  have  rcn-acded  the  stipulation  as  a  statute 
of  limllalions  which  it  clearly  was  not,  and  it   leaves  us  in 
doulit  whether  the  decisidn    was   not    rested  on   the  u'rouiul 
that    lliere   was   no   siitlicieiil    evidence   of  a    contract."      In 
sustaiiiiim'   a   slipulation  in   these  words;   "The  defendants 
shall  not  ill  any  cNcnt  lie  liable  for  any  loss  or  damaii'e  nn- 
less  the  claim  iherefor  shall  be  pre.sent(M[  to  them  in  wi'itinj^ 
al  Iheii- said  oilii'c  within  thirty  days  aftt'r  the   time   when 
said  property  has  or  outlhl  to  have  been  deiivered,"  Siiaks- 
Wdoi), ,!.,  said  :    "  This  is  a  very  reasonalile  and  jiroper  pro- 
vision, to   enable   the    (lefeildaiils.  while    the    matter    is   still 
fresh,  to  institute  pi'oper  iiKjuiries  and   furnish  theinselvo.s 
with  evidence  on  that    subject.     The  defendants  do  a  laru'o 
'•' SoiiiIktii  i:\|uv-.- ('(I.  V.  CuinTloiu   ItAhi.  101  (187(1;. 

10 


m 


146 


THE  CONTKACTS  OK  fAKlMKUS. 


[cii.  V. 


.1     !i 


1 

i 


'■      •(1,1 


Hi 


yi ': 


!;!■   i  ? 


hu.-iiu'ss,  aiul  to  allov  suits  to  Ix'  hrouuht  imaiiist  tliciii  with- 
out sui'li  notice  at  iuiy  Iciiutii  of  time  would  he  to  surrciidor 
tluMU  1)ouikI  liaud  and  foot  to  almost  every  claim  wliich 
iniiiiit  be  made.  Jt  would  he  next  to  impossible  wh.en^  ti 
thousand  jiacka^ics,  lar^e  and  small,  are  foiwarded  to  them 
dailv,  to  ascertain  auythinii'  about  the  loss  of  one  of  them 
jit  a  distance  of  six  mouths  or  a  year."''  A  condition  that 
the  carrier  sluuild  not  be  liable  for  any  loss  unless  a  claim 
therefor  should  Ite  presented  within  thirty  days  after  the 
date  of  the  receipt,  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Indiana  to  be  uiu'casouable  and  void  in  a  contract  to  carry 
a  valise  ♦'rom  Indiana  to  (Jeori:ia,  dated  -bin.  -'4,  l>i(i.'), 
(hn'iu<4'  the  civil  war.'-  But  in  a  subseipient  case  in  the  same 
State  where  a  i)acka|fe  of  money  was  leceived  by  the  Adams 
Express  Comi)any,  at  Pittsburuhi  I'a.,  directed  to  a  person 
at  Jonesboro,  Ind.,  the  bill  of  ladiuj;-  stipulatinjr  that  the 
company  was  not  to  be  liable  for  any  loss  unless  the  claim 
therefoi'  should  be  made  in  writinir,  at  the  oilice  of  ship- 
ment, within  thirty  days  frojn  the  date  of  the  receipt,  and 
the  com[»laint  did  not  a.llcire  that  the  claim  for  such  loss 
was  made  in  Avritiuir  within  thiriy  days  after  Uie  date  of  the 
contract,  it  was  ruled  that  the  stijjulation  that  such  claim 
should  be  nnide  in  writing  v/ithin  the  time  speciiied  was 
reasonable  ;  that  in  such  a  case  a^.  this  it  was  not  ncH-essar}' 
to  make  the  claim  at  the  otlice  of  shipment,  but  it  mi<j:ht  b(; 
made  u[)on  some  agent  or  olHcer  of  the  company  chargeable 
with  the  loss.'''  A  condition  in  a  bill  of  lading  that  all  claims 
for  damages  should  be  made  heforp  the  article  was  taken 
away  from  the  station  was  lield  in  a  North  Carolina  case  to 
be  reasonal)le  except  as  to  latent  liefects.'^  A  bill  of  latling 
contained  the  foUo'ving  clauses:  "The  articles  named  in 
this  bill  of  hiding  shall  be  at  the  risk  of  the  owner,  shi[)per 


•es* 


«' Wi'ir  V.  Express  Co.,.")  Pliila.  855  (1804).  and  sco  Southern  Expres!' 
Co.  V.  Iliiniiiciitt,  54  Miss.  5(1(>  (1S77). 
•"  Adiinis  Express  Co.  v.  Reiigiiii.  2!»  Fiid.  21  (lS(i7). 
'"  I'liited  States  Express  Co.  v.  Harris.  51  Ind.  127  (1S7.5). 
«^  Capehart  v.  Seaboard  &o.  It.  Co.,  77  X.  C.  :S55  (1S77). 


rir,  V 


•] 


CONTKAfTS  AM)  TirKIIl  KKKKCT. 


147 


'  1 


or  coiisiu-in'c  lliiTcof,  ;is  soon  as  ddivci'i'd  from  the  tackles 
of  tlu'  stcaincr  at  her  pori  of  (Icst'mai'oii  ;  and  tlu'V  sliail 
1)1'  rccrivcd  l>_v  tlif  coiisij^'iUH'  tlici'cof,  pai  ka^'c  I»_v  packau'c, 
as  so  dolivcrc'd,  and  if  not  taken  away  tlic  same  da}'  l)y 
him,  liiey  may,  at  the  option  of  the  steam(M'"s  airent,  i)C 
st'nt  to  store,  or  permitted  to  lie  Nvliere  hnided,  at  the  ex- 
pense fand  risk  of  the  aforesaid  owner,  shijjper  or  eon- 
siunee."  It  was  held  that  these  ehuises  wi'i'e  not  unrt'ason- 
ahle,  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of  tlie  eoiisinnees,  haviiiii'  had 
due  pre\  ious  notice,  to  examiiu^  each  hide  as  it  left  tlio 
vessel's  tackles  and  was  deposited  on  the  wharf,  and  to  sec 
if  it  was  their  cotton  ;  aiul  that  the  duty  of  the  vessel  was 
discharii'ed  when  tlu;  cotton  was  put  on  the  dock.'"' 

Where  an  express  company  gave  a  receipt  for  li-oods  con- 
tainiui*:  a  clause  exi'm[)ting  it  "from  any  loss  or  damau'e 
whatever,  unless  claim  should  he  made  therefor  within 
ninety  days  from  the  delivery  to  it,"  it  was  held  that  this 
clause  had  no  ai)[)licati<)n  to  :i  t^uit  airainst  the  companj'  for 
the  non-delivery  of  the  goods  themselves — that  not  being  ti 
suit  either  for  "loss"  or  "damage;"""  and  su'h  a  elause 
not  being  a  condition  i)reeedent  to  a  i)laintiff".s  right  to 
recover,  but  being  rather  in  the  nature  of  a  limitation,  can 
not,  it  has  been  said,  be  availed  of  u[)on  trial,  unless  set  up 
by  the  defendant  in  his  answer."'  In  a  New  York  ease  it 
was  ruled  that  a  reservatior  in  an  exi)ress  eoinjiaii} 's  con- 
tract that  all  claims  for  danuiges  Avere  to  be  presented  at 
the  New  York  olHce  for  settlement,  did  not  make  such  pre- 
sentation of  them  a  cohllition  jn-ecedent  to  the  companj^'s 
liability.  Their  readiness  at  that  ofKee  went  oidy  in  de- 
fence of  interest  and  costs,  and  not  to  the  cause  of  action.''** 

§  121.  I7nn'(is())i(i/j/e  and  I'oid  C'o)idltionn. — A  stipula- 
tion that  a  claim  for  loss  must  be  made  at  the  time  the 
goods  are  deliveied  will   not  protect  the  carrier  where  the 

'^''  The  Si>iil('(>.  2  IJiMi.  r>l!)  (isos). 

'»■'  I'ortcr  \.  SoathiTii  Kxpress  Co..  4  8.  C.  i:i.j  (1872), 

«' WcsU'ott  v.  Fiirgo.  (;i  X.  Y.  542  (1875). 

»*riiR'C  V.  Union  Kx.  Co..  2  Hilt.  1!)  (1858). 


ik\'  - 


148 


THE  COXTUAfTS  OF  CAHKIERS. 


[nr. 


t  --Mir 


claim  is  iritule  iii  a  reasonable  (iuie  aflcr  (he  loss  is  ascer- 
tained.'"* A  reu'uliition  of  a  I'aiiroad  company  i)oste(l  uj)  in 
llieir  depot,  r((|uirin_u'  all  t'laims  for  damages  to  be  made 
■within  ten  days  after  delivery  at  the  station  is  uni'easonahie, 
l)e(  aiise  more  than  ten  days  mijiht  elaj)sc  before  a  pai'ly 
know  of  the  loss  of  his  proijcrty.'"  Of  the  sanu^  order  is  a 
reu'uhition  of  a  railroad  company  that  before  a  consii>'iieo 
can  oblain  his  wheat  from  the  conij)any's  bins  lie  shall 
receijit  for  the  (luantity,''  and  that  a  i)asscnu-er  on  a  steam- 
boat shall  not  take  into  his  state-room  such  bau'iz'a,ii"t'':is  he 
mav  rc(iuii'e  for  his  personal  use.'-'  in  a  Pennsylvania  case 
it  is  said:  "  There  can  be  no  iloul)t  that  if  a  carrier  were  to 
attempt  to  provide  eillu'r  that  all  iroods  shoe.ld  be  valued  at 
ii  fixed  sum  indei)endently  of  theii'  real  value,  or  demaiul 
an  increased  compensation  in  the  foi'm  (»f  insurance  dis- 
pi-oi)ortione(l  to  the  inci'case  of  responsl])ility  and  risk,  the 
attempt  would  be  one  which  the  law  would  discountenance 
and  i)ut  down.  The  remedy  of  the  owner  Avould  then  bo 
found  either  in  suimnoninii' the  carrier  to  aceejit  the  lioods 
at  the  real  value  and  subj(>ct  to  a  I'easonable  chai'ii'e,  and 
luulctinii"  liini  in  damaires  if  he  refused,  or  in  deliverinji' 
them  under  protest  and  callinu"  upon  th(>  cou"ls  foi-  redress 
in  case  of  loss."  '*'  Hut  where  the  terms  of  the  canier's 
special  accei)tance  are  reasonable,  the  fact  that  the  shipixT 
a<2'reed  to  it  "  under  protest  '"  i,;,  it  seems,  not  material.'' 

§  122.  lieriulatious  hi  IIip  Transportation  of  Live  tSton-. 
— In  contracts  for  the  carriau'c  of  live  stock,  sti])uIations 
that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  responsible  for  loss  or  injury  to 
any  one  animal  for  more  than  a  sum  specitiod  ;  that  the 
owner  shall  bear  the  risk  of  1  iss  or  damau'c  by  reason  of 
delay;  and  that  the  owiier   >   all  take   the   I'isk  nl'  injuries 


I    «'■'  >r(>uiiiliisl{.  Co.  V.  n<.lloNv:iy.  t  L.  I'v:  V.<i.  \l.  IlT)  riSTT). 
'"  lirowninu- V.  Lnu^x  Islmul  I{.  Co..  2  D^il".  117  (ls>17). 
'1  Cliri^li;iii  V.  St.  I'aiiliitc.  U.  Co..  20  Minn.  •_>!  (1-7.;). 
'- :\I:i(liliii    v.  N("  -.R-rsoy  Stc:niil)o;it  Co..  7  Ahh.  i'r.  (X.S.)  -22!)  (IStJS). 
"Newliiir;;'cr  v.  ICxpross  Co..  0  I'liilii.  171  (ISiUi). 
''*  Goggiu  V.  K;uis!i>  .'tc.  1{.  Co.,  12  Kas.  111!  (1S7!). 


CM.  v.] 


CON'ritACTS  AM)  TIIKI!;   KFl'KCT 


149 


wliicli  llic  iinim.ils  may  receive  '•  in  eoii.scMiuenee  cf  lieat, 
suffocation  or  of  heiiitj  ci'owde;!,  or  on  a<'c()tiiil  of  Ix'iiiix  in- 
jured, wliellier  such  injuiy  i>;  caused  by  the  huniiiii;  of  liav, 
straw,  or  any  oilier  material  for  fcedinu'  said  animals  or 
olherwise,"'  have  all  heen  held  valid  and  binding.'''  In  a 
case  in  Alaliama'''  a  conunon  carrier  and  tlu'  owner  of  live 
stock  made  a  sjjccial  contract,  wherein  it  was  agreed  that  in 
consi(h'ration  of  reduceil  rates  anil  a  frei'  i)a»is  to  the  owner, 
the  latter  would  attend  tlu'  stock  and  care  for  it  at  his  own 
expense,  in  case  of  accidents,  and  that  the  value  at  the  time 
and  place  of  shi[)m(,nt,  not  to  exceed  $.')()  per  head  for  ordi- 
nary beef  cattle,  should  be  the  measui'e  of  recovery  for  any 
loss  for  which  the  carrier  might  be  liable.  The  contract  was 
enforced  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  the  measure  of  the  car- 
rier's liability,  l)i;icKKr.L,  C.  J.,  saying  :  "We  have  had  much 
dilHculty  in  determining  the  validity  of  the  stipulation.  *  * 
If  the  measure  of  the  liability  thus  iixed  api)eared  to  be 
greatly  disproportionate  to  the  real  value  of  the  animal  and 
the  amount  of  fi'eight  receiv(>d  we  should  not  hesitate  to  de- 
clare it  unjust  and  uiu'casonable.  But  as  the  ease  is  pre- 
sented, it  seems  to  have  l)een  intended  to  adjust  the  measure 
of  liability  to  tlu^  reduced  rate  of  freight  charged  and  to 
protect  tlu^  carrier  against  exaggevated  or  fanciful  valua- 
tions.'" Manmnc,  ,].,  dissented,  iioUling  that  in  order  to 
rendi'r  such  a  condition  reasonable  the  sum  mentioned  ought 
to  be  the  maximum  value  of  any  one  of  the  cattle,  while  in 
the  case  at  bar  it  was  but  the  average  value. 

A  sti|)ulation  in  a  contract  of  sliipment  of  live  animals 
that  no  claim  for  loss  or  damage  will  be  allowed  unless  the 
s  ime  is  made  "before  or  at  thi'  time  the  stock  is  unloaded," 
is  reasonable."  The  object  of  such  a  condition  is  to  pro- 
tect the  company  from  false  and  lictitious  claims  by  having 
the  cattle  ins[)ected  bi'fore  they  are  removed  or  mixed  with 

"■'  S(|wii-('  v.  \('\v  York  Cciil.  K.  Co.,  !»S  Muss.  2:5!)  (1S(J7). 
■'■  Soiilli  ^c.  Al:il):imii  R.  Co.  v.  lU'iilfin.  52  Ahi.  OlXi  (187')). 
"  (Jouniii  v.  Kansas  i^lc.  J{.  Co.,  12  Kas.  410  (,1874)  :  I{iee  v.  Kansas  i^iC. 
1{.  Co..  (iii  Mo.:{14  (1S7(!). 


51    ^ 


i 


f  i 


f 


150 


TMK  CONTItACTS  OK  CAKIMIOiiS. 


[cir.  \. 


ollh'i-  C!:t',l(>.  l)iit  ilic  ;!i:r;i>('  "  hcforc  ov  ai  llu-  time  the 
.stock  is  unloaded,"  is  not  limilcd  to  the  idciilical  inomcul  : 
till'  notice  need  onlv  oe  so  iinnicdiate  V.v.'A  i'.s  oi)ject  may  lie 
attained.'"  In  a  I'ecent  ease  in  Missouri  a  sj>eeial  eonti'act 
for  tlie  shipnu'nl  of  eallle  provided  that  no  •■laiui  was  lo  I)e 
allowed  unless  "  the  same  is  made  in  wrilini^'  hefoi-e  or  at 
the  time  th.  • .  ck  is  unloaded."'  The  ears  were  thrown 
from  the  track  Avhile  the  slock  was  in  transit,  .'Uid  pari  of 
the  stock  injurcMl.  After  Ix'inu"  detained  for  some  lim(>  the 
train  jjroceeded  to  its  destination,  where  it  ai'ri'icd  at  mid- 
iiiu'iit.  ])ef()i'e  unloadinii'  the  owner  v;'r')ally  notilied  the 
company's  a<>"(>nt  that  he  would  not  receive  the  cattle  e;\cept 
midei-  i)i-otc'st,  and  asserted  his  claim  for  damajzes.  The 
au'ent  made  no  objection  to  its  form,  but  assured  him  that 
it  was  not  neci>ssary  to  p)  to  the  c()m])an_v's  olliee  that 
iiiu'ht.  From  that  lime  he  pive  his  enlii'e  attention  to  the 
stock;  a.nd  in  conse(|uence  of  the  unlitness  of  the  stock 
yard  and  with  tlu^  compiniy's  consent,  the  ca.itle  were  re- 
moved tliat  niii-ht  to  the  plaintiff's  farm,  several  miles  dis- 
tant, Avhero  the  company  miu'ht  have  examined  them.  Tlii'ee 
days  later  ho  irave  a  written  notice  of  his  claim  to  an  ofiicei* 
of  tlie  company.  It  was  held  that  t!ie  p.urpose  of  the  con- 
ditiori  had  been  complied  with,  via.:  an  oijpoi'tunil \'  for  the 
company  lo  insj)ect  the  slock  b'-foi'e  they  were  mixed  with 
others  or  slau<rhtered  ;  thai  Ihe  contract  of  tiie  <'onipanv 
amounted  to  a  waiver  of  (he  notice,  and  that  t!ie  plaintiff 
was  entiiled  lo  ret-o-.-er.'' 

"'*  (lo<;'.<i'iii  V.  K;nis.'i>;  I'cc.  It.  Co..  xii/ira.  In  llii-  ciisc^  tlu'  coiitnict  ])m- 
vidcil  tliat  till' slii|)p('r -iiniilil  ;iri  ■iiiipiiny  llic  iMitlc.  ;iiiil  llic  c(.ml  say: 
'•  Xor  Will  1 1(1  siicli  a  nuliic  1m'  !'''a~(iiialili'  in  Ih.'  case  (if  an  onlina.i'v  .-Iiip- 
])('!■  who  (lid  not  ac('oin|iuny  or  supci'iMli'n  i  Iii-  slocl;:  nor  would  il 
Iiroliably  in-cvcnt  a  rccoxcry  I'or  injn^i(•^•  ^;nslain('d  wldcli  conid  not  I'cad- 
ily  ))(' seen  , ".lid  acliialiy -jioii'd  not  he  discovcrcil  until  il'c  lime  I'or  jiT,- 
inji'  the  notice  had  cxiiircd." 

"" Klcc  V.  Kansas  i^c.  H.  Co..  (;;  Mo.;;!  I  ( I'TCi).  'I'iic  ciiii-i  here  refer 
to  the  fact  that  !lie  Kans;.-:  eonrl  in  tlie  (io'.'.'LViii  e.-ise  declared  1h;it  tlie 
jihrase.  ••  hil'ore  or  at  tlie  time  of  mdoadin:';.'"  does  not  inean  that  the  iio- 
tiee  nni-t  Ir.'  at  the  ideiitieal  iiioineii!.  hat  so  iinniediately  thai  the  ohjeet 
.sou'i'lil  l)V  tiie  notice  can   he  aliainc'l.     Tiierel'ore  t!ie   two   deei -ions  do 


vu.  \ 


CONTKArTS  AM)  TIIKIIJ  ICFFKCT. 


151 


§  12."».  Mi'diis  of  Ciirt'i/liKi  Oiif  ('oi>'/''//o)is  J/iisf  he  l^rn- 
ridi-il. —  If  a  cMrricr  uivc  notice  llial  he  will  not  he  liable 
unless  certain  condiiimis  aie  complied  with  he  must  ijrovide 
the  means  for  ohtaininu"  the  eustomei-'s  compliance.  Thus 
a  regulation  tliat  the  carrier  will  not  he  lial)le  for  the  loss  of 
hauiiau'e,  unless  the  same  has  been  checked,  if  it  have  any 
effect,  will  not  pre\ent  a  person  who  i>ii\  his  I )aii'<>a^'e  to 
the  cai'i'ier's  ai^'cnt  and  demanded  a  check,  hut  failed  to  re- 
ceive one,  l)ecMUse  the  person  whosi^  dutv  it  was  to  <i"ivo 
them  was  ii()t  present,  from  recoverini:'  its  'Mlue."^' 

§  \'2\.  Iiisiinnirt', —  A  carrier  is  nc.'  an  insurer  in  the  or- 
dinary sense  of  (he  term,  as  he  can  not  call  on  an  insuraueo 
company  that  has  insured  jioods  lost  while  in  his  hands  for 
eontrihution.  I  lis  is  not  a  contract  of  indemnity  inde))end- 
ent  of  the  care  and  custody  of  the  u'oods/'  lint  he  mar 
make  an  au'reement  with  the  owner  that  in  case  of  h)ss  or 
damage  to  the  j/oods  forwhicli  he  is  liable,  he  shall  have  the 
benelil  of  any  insurance  effected  by  or  on  account  of  the 
owner/-  \\'here  an  express  company  receii)ted  for  uoods 
left  to  them  to  be  forwarded  by  a  particular  vessel,  and  that 
vessel  beinii'  withdrawn  sent  them  i)y  another  which  was  lost, 
it  was  held  that  the  company  was  liable  for  the  loss;  and 
(he  fact  that  the  owner  demanded  and  collected  the   insur- 


iiot  cuiillifl.  Ill  llic  (;o::iiiii  cii-c  liic  notice  imis  not  ic'ivn  f<'i'  iiimv  tliaii 
ji  yi'iii'  iiltiT  ilic  injury.  :in(l  no  excuse  was  sliowii  except  that  at  tlie  tiinc 
of  iiiiitiailiiiu' till'  idaiiilil'f  I'oiiiii  not  olitain  w  ritiiin' niaterials.  In  a  siili- 
se(|Ucni  Mi  — iiiiri  case  (Oxiey  v.  St.  I.oiiisi^c.  1{.  ('o..(>.>  Mo.  {>:>'.)  (1S77), 
il  is  siiiij :  "II  may  also  lie  well  to  ohsei've  lliat  lliis  case  is  (listiiii;-iiislial)U' 
from  llicea~eof  Kiee  V.  Kansas  iV:c.  1{.  <'o..  sKjini.  in  this  thai  it  was 
lliere  ai;:reeii  iliat  no  claim  for  dania^es  should  he  allowed  unless  de- 
U'aiid  was  made  in  wriiinu,-  •  at  llie  lime  of  or  liefore  "  the  stuck  was 
iiiiloaded.  wiiercas.  in  the  ea-e  hefore  us.  It  is  sini|)ly  provided  that  the 
clahn  for  daina.iies  ,-iiall  he  made  in  the  iieneral  freight  ai^'eiit  in  writiiiu 
'willihi  three  days  "  from  the  lime  the  >iock  was  imloadetl.  \Ve  are  not 
j)rciiared  to  say  that  the  failure  of  tin-  jilaintiff  to  make  this  claim  in 
the  manner  and  within  the  time  desi2;iiated  would  on  that  accouu  aloiiu 
<l(>|>ri\('  liiin  of  his  rinhl  of  action." 

*■'  Freeniaii  v.  Xewtoii.  IS  K.  I).  Siiiiili.  -Jli!  (is.'if). 

^'  (;ail(s  V.  Ilailman.  11  i'a.  St.  .")]."•  (IS!',)). 

«  .Mercantile  Ins.  (Jo.  v.  ('alei)s.  21)  N.  Y.  17;{   (IS.V.)). 


152 


THE  CONTHArrS  or  CAItUIKKS. 


[fir.  V, 


3     sT 


iiiu'c  on  a  portion  of  tlic  yooils  could  not  opcnitc   to  relievo 
their  li!il)ilitT/^' 

§  l'2'>.  rs(i(i(s  (nxl  (^iisf'n/is. —  Tliat  custom  or  nsaife  will 
control  the  ii'cncral  law  of  liability  of  (carriers  i.s  shown  hy 
many  cases  :^'  hut  it  is  e(|ually  well  settled  that  such  a  cus- 
tom or  usau'c  to  he  hindinir  must  he  u'enei'al,  reasonable  and 
uniform,  and  known  to  the  party  souiiiit  to  he  hound  l)y  it  y-'' 
a  usau'e  at  one  port  will  not  he  presumed  to  he  the  usaii'e  at 
another  [jort.""'  M'hei'c  the  terms  of  a  hill  of  ladinu"  have 
ac(|uired  hy  usaire  a  i)arli(ular  sij^nitication,  the  parties  will 
he  })resumed  to  have  usi'd  them  in  that  sense. ^'  But  tin- express 
aiii'eement  of  the])arties  will  overcome  this  ;  as  foi'  example 
the  practice  of  lines  of  steamshii)s  to  ship  <j.-oods  in  a  cer- 
tain Avay  will  not  control  the  terms  of  a  con*>'aet  specifying 
a  different  mai-.ner  in  Avhich  to  ship  them.^^  If  carriei's  on 
a  particular  river  sometimes  jj^ave  hills  of  ladinir  ('ontainin<x 
an  exemption  from  loss  l>y  tire,  and  at  other  times  contain- 
ing; no  such  exemption,  such  a  usaue  is  not  estahlished,  he- 
cause  not  uniform,  and  this  althoujrh  in  a  majority  of  cas(?s 
the  exception  >vas  contained  in  the  hills  of  lading.'^'     A  car- 


I'  i- 


'^''  Goodrich  v.  Thompson.  4  J?oht.  75  (ISdd).  anirnu'd  U  X.  :524  (1S71). 

»*  McMastcrs  v.  riMinsylvaiiiii  R.  Co..  0!)  Ta.  St.  :{74  (1S71)  ;  Baxt(>r  v. 
T.ehiiid.  Aljb.  Adin.  :i4S  (1S4S) ;  (iiltsoii  v.  ('iilvcr.  17  WimkI.  :U),-)  (1S37); 
(iarsulo  V.  rroprietors.  4  Term  JJcp.  .")Sl  (17IIJ) ;  Jlyilc  v.  l'r()i)netor!*,  5 
Id.  ;{8!)  (17!W);  Van  Santvoord  v.  St.  Jolin.  (I  Ifill.  l.")7  (1S4;S) ;  Cope  v. 
Cordova,  1  Kawlc.  'iO;}  (1S2!I).  But  in  Scliifffdin  v.  Harvey.  Ant ii.  .")(► 
(1808),  evidence  was  offered  to  show  tliat  aeeordinj^tothe  {general  nnder- 
staiiding  of  niereliants  as  soon  .as  a  custom  lioiiseotlieer  wasi)ut  on  l)oanl 
a  sliip  tlie  floods  were  at  tlie  risk  of  the  shipper.  Tliompson.  J. :  "  'J'iie 
testimony  is  inadmissible.  Tlie  established  principles  of  law  can  not  be 
controlled  by  eu>toni.'" 

**•''  ••  At  most  it  was  a  nsaf,'e  recently  established,  and  conlined  to  the 
l)artieidar  l)nsiness  of  the  defendant  at  a  particular  i)iaee.  not  known  to 
the  plaintiffs  and  which  they  were  not  bound  to  ascertain.  The  iisaj^e 
relied  upon  in  tliis  ease  lack  tlie  essential  elements  of  a  valid  iisaj^e.  It 
is  neither  j^eneral.  established,  uniform  or  notorious.'"  Jiawson  v.  Hol- 
land, .■)!)  N.  Y.  Gil  (187.-)). 

>*  Bazin  v.  Steanwhip  Co.,  ;{  Wall.  Jr.  22!)  (18,")7). 

••*'  ^Vayne  v.  The  (J.'iieral  Pike,  iti  Ohio.  421  (1847). 

'^Bazinv.  Steamship  Co.. ;{  Wall.  Jr.  22!)  (18.-)7). 

"'•'  Cooper  V.  Berry,  21  Ga.  .")2(i  (18.-)7) ;  Berry  v.  Cooper,  28  Ga.  54:5  (18.')9). 


lilt 


CIt.   V,J 


CO.NTWACTS  AM)  TIIKIU  KI'lKl T. 


liu] 


I'ior  call  iiol  limit  his  lial»ilil  v  hy  merely  pi-oviiiu'  a  usaife  on 
his  pari  in  ji'iviiiir  l)iiis  of  huliiiirto  exempt  himself  from  ecr- 
taiii  classes  of  losses — lliat  he  in  fact  iievei'  did  husiiiess  on 
any  other  terms.""  'I'hus  where  no  receipt  is  j^-iven  hy  tho 
carrier,  he  can  not  limit  his  liability  1)V  sjiowinu'  that  it  Avas 
his  custom  to  jzive  receipts  containinu'  limitations,  and  that 
if  ii  recei[)t  had  Iteen  li'iven  it  would  liav(!  been  in  the  usual 
form.'"  iSo  the  fact  that  an  express  com[)any  commonly 
li'.ive  pi'intcd  receipts  containinii'  certain  conditions,  for 
o-oods  received,  will  not  ant hovi/e  the  admission  in  evidence 
of  such  a  receipt  lo  limit  their  liability  in  a  case  where  a 
nu're  written  receij)!  was  oiven  which  conta'ned  no  limita- 
tion at  all,'-  In  a  Xev\-  ^'orlc  case'''  it  is  said  that  althouiih 
a  carrier  can  not  vary  the  liability  which  attaches  ui)()ii  the 
receipt  of  jroods  for  transportation  without  (|ualiiication,  by 
the  delivery  of  a  subseijuent  bill  of  ladinu"  containinsr  con- 
ditions, yet  that  this  rule  will  be  differ«'nt  if  the  i)arties 
liave  been  in  the  habit  of  transactinii;  their  business  in  this 
way.  It  is  held  in  Michiiran  and  Illinois  that  the  s«nding  of 
goods  under  n  restrictive  contract  in  any  number  of  in- 
stances does  not  bind  the  party  sending  them  to  a  similar 
contract  in  the  future,  without  his  agreement  to  that  ef- 

w  Illinois  t  Viit.  T{.  Co.  v.  Siny>:<'r.  :{S  111.  :?r)4  (ISO.")).  A  ciistoiii  not  to 
sign  Wills  of  liulinj:;  for  lookinj^-glusscs  without  tlio  words  *•  not  rosponsi- 
])le  for  contents,""  ciui  not  be  proved  for  the  purpose  of  (lualifying  the 
liiihility  of  a  carrii-r.  ••  The  law,  and  not  such  a  eustoni.  aseertains  and 
limits  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  shii)i)ers  and  eonunon  eari'iers."'  The 
I'ueitlc,  1  Deady.  17  (ISdl).  A  eominon  i-arrier  upon  a  canal  I'an  not,  in 
the  absence  of  an  exi>ress  eontraet.  limit  his  liability  by  showing  that  by 
a  custom  on  the  canal  I'arriers  are  not  liable  for  losses  resulting  from  the 
dangers  of  nuvig;ition.  from  tire  or  from  inevitable  accident.  Coxe  v. 
llcisley,  1!»  Pa.  .St.  21:5  (IS.VJ). 

"'  Where  a  contract  for  the  shlinnent  of  goods  contained  no  exception 
!is  to  loss  by  fh-e,  although  the  usual  bills  of  lading  issued  t)y  the  currier 
did  contain  this  |)rovision.  in  an  action  for  the  \n'iw.  of  the  goods,  the 
.same  having  been  destroyed  by  tire,  a  copy  of  such  bills  of  lading  is  not 
evidence  for  tln^  transporter.     Clyde  v.  tJraver.  .")4  Pa.  St.  •2r)l^(IS(>7;. 

'■>'^  Southern  Kxpresi  Co   v.  Woniack.  1  lleisk.  "i'lO  (ISTO). 

'•'■''  Sh"lton  V.  Merchants  Disi)ateh  Trans.  Co.,  'M  X.  Y.  (S.  C.)  527 
(187;J). 


'¥■ 


1 


m 


i:)4 


TIIK  CONTItACTS  OK  C.MMM  i:i:s. 


[cir.  V. 


1^; 


feci.''  Ill  ii  .M:iss:i('liiisi  lis  ciisc  il  is  siiid  :  "We  do  not 
iiu'iiii  to  !)('  iirth'rstood  as  saviiiii' t  liiil  siicli  assnil  and  ar(|ui- 
oscciicc  iiiav  not  !><'  sliouii  l»v  cv  idciict'  drawn  from  a  loii^' 
and  unifoi'in  course  of  dcalinj:'  hctuccii  ptirlics,  in  comicc- 
tion  willi  oilier  circunislaiices  leadinu"  to  llie  iiifei-ence  llial  a 
notice  of  a  restricled  lialiilily  on  llie  |iart  of  llie  carriei-  was 
recoii'ni/ed  Itv  the  other  party  as  const  it  ill  inii'  ihe  ai:reeiiieiil 
on  which  llie  contract  of  carriaiic  was  to  he  ))erforine(|. 
JUit  siK'ii  dealiuL;"  and  rccounilion  niiist  he  tantaiiiounl  to 
a  clear  assent  to  the  terms  of  the  notice  on  the  pari  of  the 
owner  and  eonsiiiiior,  or  it  will  fall  short  of  eslaltlisliinn'  a 
limitation  on  the  common  law  liahility  of  the  carrier."  ''' 

lint  Ihoiiii'h  iisau'f  is  sometimes  admissihle  to  add  to  or 
explain  a  contiact,  it  is  never  allowed  to  vary  or  contradict, 
either  expressly  or  hy  iniplicalioii,  the  terms  of  a  wri'icii 
instrument,  or  the  fair  and  leu'al  iiii[)orl  of  a  coiiirad .'"' 
Thus,  wluM'i'  the  master  of  a  vessel  received  shins  to  he 
carried  from  New  Orleans  lo  New  York,  there  to  he  deliv- 
ered in  n'ood  order,  "  daiii:-ers  of  the  sciis"  excepted,  and 
the  skins  were  injured  liy  rats,  it  was  held  that  evidence 
of  mercantile  usap'  and  understaiidini:'  that  injuries  hy  rats 
are  treated  as  "danu'ers  of  the  sea"  was  not  admissihle."^ 
In  The  Rcciilih-,'^  Mr.  .lustice  Stokv  refused  to  admit  evi- 
dence of  a  custom  amonu'  ship-owners  tiial  the  exception 
of  the  "daiiLi'crs  of  the  seas"  extended  to  all  losses  except 
those  arisiiijr  from  their  neulecl.  In  discnssinu' the  (iiiestion 
the  learned  jud:L;'e  saitl :   "I  own  myself  no  friend  to  the  al- 


■'^  .Mc.Mill;m  V.  Miclii^im  Ac.  H.Co..  IC  Midi.  71)  (lMi7) ;  Kric  \c. 
Traii-^.  (jo.  v.  Diilcr.  S  Cciil.  I..  .(.  i'.y.\  (Is71)). 

'•'"•  J5i;;cl(iw.  C.  ,)..  in  IN-rry  v.  'i'li(.iiii)-<)ii.  '.!S  Mass.  21!)  (1M!7). 

'■"(JollriHlcr  v.  DiiisiiKirc.  .").">  N.  Y.  -.'(ill  (1S7:!). 

'■'•  Aymar  v.  Asinr.  li  Cow.  (\.  V.)  2iii;  ( lS-_>(i).  I5ia  sec  Cap.  \III. 
'•  Datiiicrs  of  N'a\  iijalioii." 

'•'-:*  Sinn,  ."iiw  (ls;)7).  'I'liis  nilini,'  was  apju'ovci]  by  llic  Snpicinc  ( 'onri 
of  tlic  I 'nit  I'll  Stale-  in  (Jarrisoii  v.  Mt'inplii-  In-.  ( 'o..  I'.i  How.  I!! 'J  (JS.'iDj, 
wlicre  i'vi(l('iii'(>,  to  llu'  cfft'ct  tlial  Ihc  word-  liic  --piTiis  of  tin'  river" 
were  aoeor;iiii^- to  tlie  iisaii'es  of  iiaviLV.'.tion  nndeisliDod  to  inejiide  losses 
by  aei'idiMaal  tire  was  lield  to  iiave  been  pn  iierly  rejeeled  by  tlie  ti'ial 
euart. 


•I.,  v.] 


C'ONTItAC'I'S  AM)  'rilKIK  Kl'FKCT. 


1;-)-) 


most  iiHliscriiniiiiUc  liahit,  of  late  ycai's,  of  scUiiiir  u|)  piir- 
ticiilar  usatrcs  or  c  jstoiiis  in  aliiiosl  all  Uiiitis  of  hiisincss  or 
Iradc,  to  coiilrol,  \aiy  or  aniiiil  the  ucnci'al  l:;il)i!il!('s  o, 
parties  uiulcr  the  ('otmiiou  Ian',  as  well  as  iiiidcr  the  coiiiiiicr- 
cial  law.  It  has  lon^i'  apiJt'arcd  to  nic,  that  llici'c  is  no  small 
(laiiircr  in  a(hnittiii;j;*  such  loose  juid  iiiconcliisive  iisau'es  and 
eiistoms,  often  iinknown  to  parlicidar  parties,  and  always 
lialtle  to  li'reat  misiiiiderstaiMiiiiLis  and  misinterpretations  and 
ahnses,  to  oiHweiuh  the  well-Unown  and  weli-<ettle(l  prinei- 
l)les  of  law.  And  I  rejoice  to  lind  tiiat  of  late  ycai's  the 
co\n'ts  of  law,  holli  in  ICnuiand  and  in  America,  have  heeii 
disposed  to  narrow  the  limits  of  the  operation  of  such 
usa'i.'es  and  customs,  and  to  discountenance  any  further  ex- 
tension of  them.  The  true  an<l  approprial(>  ollice  of  a  usaire 
or  custom  is  to  interpret  the  otherwise  inch'tei'minate  inten- 
tions of  parties,  and  to  ascertain  the  nalnre  and  extent  of 
their  contracts,  arisinu'  not  from  express  sti|)ulations,  hut 
from  mere  implications  and  presumptions  and  acts  of  a 
dou!)tful  or  e(|uivoeal  character,  ll  may  also  l)e  admitted 
to  ascertain  the  true  meanini;'  of  a  particular  word  or  of 
jsariicular  wiH'ds  in  a  ,i':i\cn  instrument,  when  the  woi'd  or 
words  have  vai'ious  senses,  some  common,  sonie  (pialilied 
and  some  technical,  accordinii'  to  the  suljject-nnitter  to 
Avhieh  they  are  ap.plied.  Ihit  I  a[)prehend  that  it  can  never 
he  proper  to  resort  to  any  nsau"e  or  custom  to  control  or 
vary  the  jjositive  stipulations  in  a  wi'iften  contract,  and,  a 
J'orfiiiri,  not  in  order  to  contradict  them.  An  express  eon- 
tract  of  the  i)arti(\s  is  always  admissil,le  to  sui)ei'sede,  or 
\arv  or  control  a  usau'e  or  custom  ;  for  tlie  lattei'  may  al- 
Avays  he  waived  at  the  will  of  the  parlies.  Hut  a  v.i'itten 
and  express  contract  can  not  i)e  controlled,  or  varied  or 
contradicted  hy  a  nsau'e  or  custom  ;  foi"  that  wouhl  not  only 
he  to  admit  parol  evidenei'  to  control,  vary  or  contradict 
writfer  contracts:  hut  it  would  he  to  allow  mere  [)resump- 
lions  and  inipliciitions,  properly  aris;njj,"in  theahseiice  of  any 
l)ositive  expi(  ■;-ioiis  of  intention,  to  control,  vary  or  <'ontra- 
dicl  the  most  formal   and  diTiherate  declarations  of  the  par- 


4?  {; 


ir)(; 


TIIK  CONTIJACTS  OI"  (\\.i;i!Ii;i!S. 


[cii.  V, 


:  'i'  ]i 


ml 


■l 

ll 

^^n' 

1 

lies.  Now,  wliat  is  tlic  ohjcci  of  the  pi'csciil  iisscrlcd  usiili'c 
or  (■iistoiii""'  II  is  1(1  show,  tii;i(,  ii()(\villisl!iii(lin<r  llitTc  is  ii 
wrilU'ii  coiitriU't  (tlic  l>ill  of  liidiiiLr),  ity  which  liic  owners 
have  ii^i'i'ccil  to  (it'iivi'V  (lie  jioctds  shipped  in  ^ood  oriler  and 
coiidilioii,  lit  Boston,  liie  daiiircr  of  llie  seas  only  excepted  ; 
yet  the  owners  are  not  to  Ix'  held  hound  to  deliver  them  in 
ii'ood  oi'der  and  condilion,  althoULdi  the  danger  of  tlii'  seas 
has  not  caused  or  occasioned  tlu'ir  heinu'  in  liad  condition, 
hut  causes  wholly  forei:.ni  to  such  a  peril.  In  short,  tlietdi- 
jcct  is  to  suhslitule  for  the  express  terms  of  the  hill  of 
ladinir  an  implied  au'i'ernient  on  the  part  of  the  owners  that 
they  shall  not  I)e  hound  to  deliver  the  iToods  in  u'c'od  order 
ami  condition  ;  hut  that  they  shall  he  liable  only  for  daina<:e 
done  to  the  uoods  occasioned  l»y  their  own  n«\iilect.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  that  this  is  to  sui)ersi'de  the  positive  aufreemeiit. 
of  tlie  parties,  and  not  to  construe  it." 

In  iSiiiiiii'Dis  r.  /ydir,''-'  under  a  hill  of  ladinuf  for  the  ear- 
riajri'  of  treasure  from  San  Francisco  ria  the  Isthmus  to 
New  York,  by  the  fair  ccuist ruction  of  which  the  cari'ier  was 
lial)le  as  such  for  the  transportation  across  the  Isthmus,  evi- 
dence was  held  inadmissible  in  an  action  ai^ainst  the  carrier 
for  the  loss  of  the  goods  on  the  Isthmus,  to  pi-ove  that  it 
was  the  custom  ol  shippers  of  treasure  to  insure  it  ai^ainst 
risks  u})on  the  Isthmus;  or  that  there  was  a  custom,  by 
which  the  carrier  of  uold  refused  to  assume  any  risk  of 
transportation  on  the  Isthmus,  or  that  the  bills  of  lading- 
then  in  use  excepted  all  I'isks  of  land  and  I'ivi'r  carriau'e  on 
the  Istlunus;  or  that  tin;  plaintiff  liad  previously  shipped 
treasure  by  this  line,  and  knew  of  this  custom  when  h(^ 
lade  the  slii|)ment  in  (juestion.    Hut  where  a  railroad  coin- 


ni 


»»8B(isw.2i:{  (ISOl);  iifliniu'd,  ;(  Kcyi-s.  -217  (lS(;il).  'I'lic  liillof  huVuv^ 
of  {ijokl  (IclivciPil  :it  Siiii  Frinicisco  stated  tliat  it  was  sliippcil  on  the  vt's-  ^ 
set  at  San  Fi-aaciseo.  and  that  "ini  arrival  at  Panama  tin-  saan'  is  to  t)i'. 
forwarded  across  ilie  Isthimis.  and  to  i)i'  ri'-siii|ii)('il  l)y  one  of  tlic  I'nitiHl 
States  Mail  Stt'anislup  Company's  sliips  to  New  Vorl\.  »  *  ♦  *  aiid 
to  be  delivered  in  like  ;j;ood  oi'iler  and  condition  at  tin-  port  of  New 
York,  daiif^ers  of  the  seas,  land  cariiage  and  river  navi;^ati(jn.  thieves 
aud  robbers  excepted." 


•...  v.] 


coNTnACTs  ^\u  Tiri:iu  EFri:rT. 


IT)? 


j)!iiiv  r"('t'ivc(l  jjjoods  tuldrcsscd  (o  m  poiiil  hryoinl  its  Icniiiii- 
iis,  iir.d  <X!iV(i  ii  l)ill  of  liidiiiii-  for  tlic  Ir.'insjxn'tiilioii  of  llic 
^;(i()(|s  lo  ils  tcniiiims,  it  was  held  lliat  parol  cNidmcc  was 
;;dmissil>lc  to  prove  that  llicrc  was  a  fustom  in  su«'ii  casi'H 
to  (h'livcr  to  a  coniicctiiin'  canicr,  such  evidence!  not  lend- 
ing" to  varv  ov  eontradicl  the  hill  of  lading?.'"" 

1"  lluLiMT  V.   ('liic!i;;o  U.  Co.,  27  Wis.  M   (l.S7Uj. 


l.-)H 


Tin:  CON  TKACrs  or  CAltUIKKS. 


[('11.    VI. 


(II. 


■*:' 


lU: 


ClIAl'TKi:  VI, 


l.IAIUr.lTY  NOTWITIISTASMINd  CONTIIAC T  —  NKdLKfKNCK. 


SKPTIOX. 


1.'7. 
l-js. 

12!». 

i:»o. 
i;n. 
i:»2. 


'I'lir  r)i';;r('t'!<  f»f  \(';;li;;('IM'i'. 
Kr;i-i(n<  fur  ilic  Divi^imi. 
Di-ic'idMiit  l)((i«iiin». 
Views  of  tlic  i;ii;;lisli  ,lii(l<j;t'S 


TIk'  Aint'ricaii  Dociiiiic. 

Power  to  Coiiiracl  Ay::iiii»l  N'eirlijjeiiee— In  i;iiy;l!iii(l. 

Power  to  ("out met  Ai^iiiii^t  .\ey:li;^eiu'c— In  Amerien. 
IHU.     Failure  t<>  Apiuise  ( 'airier  of  \  aliie  ami  L'oiileiils. 
VM.    Coiitriliiitorv  \ej;ii.i,'eiiee  of  JJailor. 
i;i.").    Tlie  Iliiie  in  New  York. 
I'M).     Diseonlant  l)eei«ion.<. 
1^7.    Other  Cases  in  the  (.'arriago  of  IJve  Stock. 
138.     Evldenee  of  Xej;lij,n'iiee. 


§  12tt.  77ip  Jj('(/r('i's  of  ycf/I/t/fnicf. —  Sir  William  Jonk.s 
in  his  essiiy  on  the  Law  of  liiiilinciils,'  distinjiruishcs  l)e- 
twecn  ordiiiitry,  jrross  and  sliirlil  iiciiliuciicc  tiius:  "  Ordi- 
narv  nosrlt'ct  is  tho  omission  of  lliut  care  which  ovcrv  man 
of  common  prudence  and  capalih'  of  <ifovernin<i  a  family, 
takes  of  his  own  concerns,  (tross  ne/^h-ct  is  the  want  of 
that  care  which  every  man  of  co.nmon  sense,  how  inatten- 
tive soever,  taki-s  of  his  own  property.  Slight  negUict  is 
the  omission  of  that  dili<rence  whitl  till  cireums})ect  and 
thouirhtful  i)ersons  use  in  .socurin<r  their  own  goods  and 
chattels."     Judire  Stouy  gives  in  .substance  the  same  detini- 


1  Joues  on  Bailments,  p.  118. 


(I 
ti 

t 


tioii  ill  llii'sc  It'i'ins:   »' *' Ordiiiiirv  nri:lit.''('iic('   nniv    lu'  dc- 

HlH'il  Id  lir  ihr  Uiillt  nf  ((ftliiiiilT  (lililiilicc,  i:r(»s,s  IH'^JjIiL'cili'c 
1(1  lie  (lie  Uillit  (if  sli;>li(  (liliiiciicc,  Mild  sli;:lit  ll('<.di,v'i'IM'('  t(i 
lie  till'  wiiiil  of  ;;rf;it  dili^iciu'c  ;  " -'  and  llic  r<lit(ii*  of  tin* 
'iilcr  I'llitioiis  of  the  last  work  says  in  a  note:  "It  can  not 
ic  doiilitc<l  that  llicrc  Mi'f  difffi'cnt  dt'urccs  of  nc/^lij^cncf, 
lioiiiiii  till-  dividiiiu:  lint'  iK'twccn  tliciii   may  Itc  nan'(»\v,  and 


llioiiiih  till'  dividinu:  lint'  lictwccn  tliciii  may  Itf  nan'(»\v,  and 
it  may  not  always  he  easy  to  say  on  wliicli  side  of  ilic  line  ii 
[larticular  tas(>  may  fall.  It  is  pos-ihlc  that  no  iinifonii 
iiicaninu' lias  always  liccn  ascriiictl  to  to  tliti  words  *  •^ros,'* 
iH'Li'liLi't'iK'f,'  aiitl  tilt'  tfi'in  lias  soiiictiliics  hccii  joctscly  ap- 
plii'd  to  lanici's  for  hire,  whereas  it  is  more  correctly 
used  in  descrihinii'  that  de^zree  of  neiiliu't'iici'  for  which  a 
<;rii(uitoiis  hailee  is  rcsponsihie.  Hut  the  existence  of  a 
practical>le  difference  Itetweeii  the  deurees  of  ue^iiH(>iie('  lien 
at  the  foiindalioii  t)f  the  law  of  hailments."  ' 

§  127.   h'l'dsniis  /(If  till'   I)irisiiiii. —  It    may  pi'o|)erly   ho 


hailnient  may  he  for  the  sole  henelit  of  the  bailor,  as  in  tlio 
case  of  a  person  stoi'inir  the  u'oods  of  another  on  his  prem- 
ises without  compensation.  This  is  \\\v  iii'j)osifum  or  naked 
hailnient,  or  the  )ii(niifiifii)ii  of  Lord  lloi/r,  of  which  he 
Hay.s  in  Coijijs  v.  Jii'rnonl:^  "  1I(!  is  not  answerahle  if  they 

2  Story  oil  Biiiliiicnts.  §  17.  'I'lic  terms  used  hy  the  civil  liiwyors  were 
hviH  riil/)ii,  lutii  I'liliiii  1111(1  hrissiiiiii   fiiljiii. 

■■'  III  Siiiith's  I.cadiiiL:;  Cases  (note  to  CofrRs  v.  Beriiiiril,  IU(t),  it  is  said: 
"Nearly  all  llie  coiifiisnui  and  obscurity  which  heloiij;  to  the  siihject  of 
haihncnis  have  hccn  occasimicd  hy  the  niifortiiiiate  inlrodiictioii  of  tli(> 
words 'fjross' and  "slifilil"  iie;4ii<;e.nce.  which  do  not  helon;;-  to  our  law, 
and  which  convey  no  precise  idea.  'I"he  civil  lawdistrihiition  and  classi- 
lication  of  these  lialiililies  is  entirely  different  from  ours;  diir  law  has 
conceived  of  llie  le;;al  ol)li<i:ition  and  duties  of  men,  in  n-latioii  to  their 
iiei;jlil)or's  iirojierty.  and  has.  hy  this  action   on  tin'  case,  dellned  them 

willi  i^M  inin*)i  I'Miiiiiri'liciwinti  iiiid  1tri>i*i<imi   ticit    tlic    Uiiiiic    itriiii>inli>    !iii. 


iiei;jlil)or's  iirojierty.  and  has.  hy  this  action  on  tin 
with  so  much  comprehension  and  ]irfcision  that  the 
plies  irresijectively  of  the  seat  of  tlie  possession." 
<  I.d.  liay.  707. 


■  '>!»  Ill-  *      tl.^\      I       VII       llllt      \»  lll\      Ilfc 

hat  the  same  principle  ap- 

• ^* 


<'.^t 


160 


THK  CONTIIACTS  OF  fAItltll'.ItS. 


[Cir.   VI. 


are  stolen  witliout  any  fault  in  him  ;  ncitlicr  will  a  wonunon 
noglcrt  make  him  charii'onhlc  ;  hut  he  must  he  uuill y  of 
some  ii'i'oss  n»\;i'h'i't  ;"'  or  it  maybe  for  the  sole  lieiielit  oF 
the  bailee,  as  in  tiu'  case  of  a  uratuitous  loan,  in  whieh  ease 
the  "  l)orii)wer  is  boiuid  to  the  strictest  care  and  diliu'ence 
to  kei'i)  the  li'oods,  so  as  to  restore  lliem  back  aii'ain  lo  the 
lender,  Iiecause  tlie  i)ai!ee  has  a  Ix'Uclit  I)y  tlie  use  ot"  tliem, 
so  as  if  the  bailee  be  nuilly  of  tiie  lesist  neiiiecl,  he  will  be 
answerable;"  or  lastly  the  Ix'uetit  may  be  recipri.cal.  as  in 
the  case  of  ii<)ods  to  be  used  or  worked  for  rewai'd.  In  tlie 
tirst  case  the  bailee  was  held  to  answer  only  for  uross  uei:- 
loct ;  in  the  second  for  even  sliiilit  neglect  ;  in  the  third  oi-- 
dinarv  diliii'cnce  only  was  re(|nirt'd  of  him,  and  he  was  an- 
sweral)le  simply  for  what  Avas  calleil  ordinary  neniect.  Tiiis 
distinction  was  reasonable.  It  appeared  not  improper  that  one 
■who  had  all  the  benefit  of  any  transaction  should  carry  the 
most  risk,  and  that  he  who  had  possession  of  uoods  under 
other  circumstances  than  these,  should  not  be  re(|uired  to  ex- 
ercise more  diligence  than  the  common  run  of  men  exhibit  in 
the  transaction  of  their  owTii  affairs.  Hut  in  this  last  class  there 
"was  one  oi('U])ation  upon  which  was  imp(»sed  an  extraordinary 
and  exceptional  liability.  'Hie  common  ciuvier,  thouiih  ren- 
derinu"  service  to  his  em[)loyer  for  hire,  and  therefore  for  this 
reason  Avithin  the  third  chiss  mentioned,  was  at  a  very  eai'l\- 
day  placcfl  upon  another  and  a  different  footing",  l)einii'  in 
short,  as  has  b(H'n  seen,''  held  to  answer  foi'  the  uoods  in- 
tnisted  to  him  at  all  ev»  nts,  "th.'act  of  (iodand  the  pnl)lic 
ene.ny  only  excepted" — a  rule  in  the  absence  of  conti'act 
still  adhered  to  in  this  <(iunlry,  on  izronnds  of  pnlilic 
<'onvenience  and  i)ul>lic  policy.  Thus  it  >eems  clear  tiiat  so 
far  as  common  carriei's  are  <'oneei'ncd.  the  division  of  nej^li- 
li'ence  intc  deii'rces  is  improper  and  illoi^ical.  because  want- 
ing" the  reasons  upon  w  liich  l!ie  (ii\i-^ion  has  l)een  founded. 
§  ]'2>>.  i)/srf,r(f(nif  J)('i  /'::,. ,iis.  —Not  withstanding  this,  there 
are  decisi(  .  .  lo  be  found  in  'lie  rcjiorts  of  this  conntrv  rec- 
ognising the  degrees  of  iiegii_i';,  in  the  cas;-  of  common 
'  Ante,  (,'mi>.  I,  J ;;. 


ClI.  VI.] 


NKOLIGENCE. 


161 


ciirricrs  and  which  seem  to  ronsiilor  the  f|ue.stioii  of  their 
liahilit y  for  hrcach  of  contract  in  certain  ca.se.s  us  dejieiulinj; 
upon  the  particuhir  kind  of  neuliiicnce  with  v  iiidi  they 
may  he  [)roi)erIy  charu'c'd.  In  a  case  in  the  Siip/enie  Court 
of  Inihana  in  IS;");"),''  the  tlefendaiit  had  a<>reed  to  tow  a  ihit- 
hoat,  Ihe  owners  of  the  latter  a<ircein,ti"  that  it  sliould  1)0 
done  at  iheir  risk.  The  boat  haviiij;  been  sunk  by  the  ne<>;- 
liucnce  of  tlu'  defendant  in  towinu'  at  an  iiii[)roi)er  sp(>ed, 
the  conrt  held  that  this  was  "  irross  nciili.tronce  "  and  that 
he  was  tlierefoi'c  l!:il)le,  and  this  rulinjj;  was  cited  Avitli  ap- 
j)i-()val  in  a  subse<|uent  case.'  In  Indiana  Central  liailroad 
Conipanij  v.  Mnnd;/,^  the  indorsement  on  a  free  pass  that 
the  i)erson  receivinjj:  it  aureed  to  assume  all  risk  of  personal 
injury  and  loss  or  damaire  while  usin<>;  it,  was  held  not  to 
exemi)t  the  com[)any  from  the  conseciuences  of  gross  negli- 
gence. "Ordinary  negligence  "  was  subsequently  spoken 
of  in  the  same  way  by  the  same  court."  In  Illinois  in  an 
action  jMriiinst  a  railroad  for  damages  for  injuries  to  live 
stock,  the  court  in  discussing  the  evidence  said:  "  If  tlien, 
it  was  gross  negligence  in  the  conductor  of  the  train  carry- 
ing these  hogs,  in  refusing  to  ap[)ly  water  to  them  when  rc- 
<iuested  at  liloomington  or  at  Xoiinal,  at  which  latter  i)lace 
Avater  was  abundant  and  convenient,  the  company  could  not 
contract  against  that ;"'"  and  the  same  view  is  taken  in  a 
case  decided  the  year  before."  Both  these  eases  rest  on  an 
oarlier  one  in  which  the  ijuestion  of  the  power  of  carriers  of 
live  stock  to  restrict  their  lial)ility  coming  before  the  8u- 
l)reme  Court  of  Illincis  for  the  tirst  time,  Bukkse,  J.,  laid 
down  the  rule  in  that  State  thus:  "Railroad  companies 
have  a  right  <()  restrict  their  liability  as  eonnnon  carriers  by 
such  contracts  as  may  be  agreed   upon   specially,  thev   still 


MVrijrht  V.  (J;iff.  C  Iiul.  410. 

■  IiidiMiiiipolis  Ac.  It.  Co.  V.  Reininy,  13  Iiul.  518  (ISiV.)). 
^^'21  Iiiil.  4S  (1S(W). 

'•'  Iii(li;iii!ii)()lisitc.  U.  Co.  V.  Allen.  31   liid.  304  (ISGO). 
'»  Illinois  Cent.  |{.  Co.    v.  Adiinis.  42  111.  474  (ISG7). 
"  Adams  Kxpirss  Co.  v.  lliiynos,  42  111.  Sit  (ISOiJ). 
11 


V 


i 


u 


w 

^ 

p 

i 

ii 

1 

* 

I         t 


162 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAIlIUKnS. 


[CII.  VI. 


remainiiiix  liiil)le  for  irross  nciiliirenoc  or  wilful  nnsfoa.saiu'o 
against  whioh  good  morals  and  i)nblii'  policy  f()rl)id  that 
tliov  should  bo  permitted  to  stipulate."  '-'  Most,  if  not  all, 
of  these  eases  have  been  since  overruled,'''  but  in  New 
York  the  division  thus  attemi)ted  to  be  made  is  still  pro- 
served.'^ 

§  1:?!).  Meirs  <  /'  f/ic  E^ujJinJi  .Juthjcs. — In  a  case  decide  1 
in  1^48,  and  which  has  often  been  cited  with  approval  in 
subsecjuent  eases,'"'  Kolfk,  li.,  said  (hat  he  could  see  no  dif- 
ference between  negligence  iuid  gross  negligence,  that  the 
latter  was  the  same  thing  as  the  former  with  the  addition  of 
a  vituperative  e[)ithet.  "Any  negligence  is  gross,"  said 
Wii.MOs,  J.,  in  Lord  r.  Midhinil  Jiai/icat/  C'oiiijxnii/,^^'  "in 
one  who  undertakes  a  duty  a:id  fails  to  })erforni  it.  The 
term  gross  negligence  is  aj)plied  to  the  case  of  a  gratuitous 
l)ailee  Avho  is  not  liable  unless  he  fails  to  exercise  the  degree 
of  skill  he  ])()ssess(>s."  In  jliisfin  v.  Manclicstcr  <lv'.  Itail- 
waij  i'omimnii^'  C'iiksswkll,  J.,  said  ;  "  1'he  term  'gross 
negligence'  is  found  in  many  of  the  cases  ve[)orted  on  the 
sul)ject,  and  it  is  manifest  that  no  unifoi'm  meaning  has  been 
ascribed  to  these  words,  which  are  correctly  used  in  descri!)- 
ing  the  sort  of  negligence  for  which  a  gratuitoiis  bailee  is 
lield  responsible,  and  have  been  somewhat  loosely  used  with 
ref(>renee  to  carriers  for  hire."  In  lival  v.  ^^oidli  J)evon 
Jiailwatj  Company, '^'^  Ckomitox,  J.,  defined  the  phrase  gross 
negligence  as  the  failure  to  exercise  reasonable  care,  skill 
and  diligence.     And  the  remarks  of  Kulk,  J.,  in  Ca<shiUv. 


1-  Illinois  Cent.  H.  To.  v.  Monisoii.  It)  111.  KKl  (IS.')?). 

>•■'  See  Mi(lii,i,'tin  itc.  11.  ("o.  v.  Ilcaton.  :{7  Iiul.  448  (1.S71) ;  Ohio  &o.  R. 
Co.  v.  Scll)y.  47  Iiul.  471  (1.S74).     See  also  unU'.  Cap.  II.  (i«j  ;)S.  ;i;». 

'••  Ficiich  V.  Buffalo  iico.  J{.  t'o.  4  Kcycs,  lOS.  2  Al)l).  App.  I'.Xi  (1)S()8) ; 
Wells  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  '24  X.  Y.  isl  (ISO-J) ;  rcrkliis  v.  Xew 
York  Cent.  K.  Co..  24  N.jY.  liXi  (lS(i2);  Smith  v.  New  York  Cent.  K. 
Co..  24  N.  Y.  222  (18(12) ;  Bissell  v.  New  York  Cent.  II.  Co..  2.5  N.  Y.  442 
(1S02) ;  Poiuher  v.  New  York  Cent.  K.  Co.,  4!i  N.  Y.  2G:{  (1872). 

'•'■Wilson  V.  Brett,  11  M.  &  W.  li;i. 

i«L.  J{.  2C.  r.  :i40  (18G7). 

'"  11  Eng.  L.  &  K(i.  .-)00  (18.-)2). 

i^SlI.  &C.  337  (1804). 


CM.  VI.]  NE(!LI(!KNCE.  ]  (53 

Wrujlit,'^'^  arc  to  the  sainc  offoct.  Grill  v.  Ucneral  Iron 
iScrew  Com 2)0)))/,'^^'  was  an  aclioii  on  a  bill  of  ladinji:  for  the 
non-delivory  of  goods  intrustctl  to  the  defendants,  and 
whieli  were  lost  in  a  eoUision.  The  hill  of  ladintr  excepted 
the  "  })erils  of  the  sea,"  a  term  which  is  lield  to  enihrai-e  an 
accidental  collision.  The  plaintiff's  replication  averred 
that  the  loss  was  caused  throujih  the  <;ross  neuli<renee  of  the 
tlefendants.  On  the  trial,  EiiLi:,  C.  ,].,  left  it  to  the  jury 
to  say  whether  the  collision  was  caused  by  the  negli«ience 
of  the  ci'cw  of  the  defendants.  On  a  vu\v  lu'si  for  a  now 
trial,  on  the  irronnd  that  the  judiic  ouiiht  to  have  instructed 
the  jury  to  lind  whether  or  not  the  peiil  arose  from  uross 
ne«rligence,  WiLLKS,  J.,  said:  "No  information,  how  ^'ver, 
has  been  given  as  to  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  gross 
negligence;  in  this  case.  *  *  *  Confusion  has  arisen 
from  rciiiirdinii'  nei:li«ience  as  a  i)ositive  instead  of  a  neira- 
tlve  Avord.  It  is  really  the  absence  of  such  care  as  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  defendants  to  use.  A  bailee  is  only  rc- 
ijuired  to  use  the  ordinary  care  of  a  man  and  so  the  absence 
of  it  is  i-alled  gioss  negligence.  A  person  Avho  mulertakes 
to  do  some  work  for  reward  to  an  article  nujst  exercise  the 
care  of  a  skilled  workman,  and  the  absence  of  such  care  in 
him  is  negligence.  (Jross,  therefore,  is  a  woi'd  of  descrip- 
tion and  not  a  detinition,  and  it  would  have  been  only  in- 
troducing a  source  of  confusion  to  use  the  expression  gross 
negligence,  instead  of  the  equivalent,  a  want  of  due  care  V 
and  skill  in  naviirating  the  vessel,  which  was  airain  and  a'niin 
used  by  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  in  sunnning  up."  Montague 
Smith,  J.,  added:  "I  do  not  see  what  more  he  could  have 
said  except  it  was  to  use  the  very  word  gross,  but  it  certain- 
ly would  not  have  enlightened  the  jury  to  use  an  indefinite 
word  without  explaining  it,  and  no  different  exi)lanation 
has  been  suggested  from  that  which  his  sunnning  up  in  fact 
contained.  1'he  use  of  the  term  gross  negligence  is  onh'^ 
one  way  of  stating  that  less  care  is  required  in  some  cases 

''■'6E.  &B.  891  (lS.-)(i). 
"L.  U.  1  C.  P.  COO  (LSCGj. 


'»'«*4>*WS»<r*»*'**.f"' 


164 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAIMUKHS. 


[cm.  vr. 


p. 


N( 


than  ill  otliors,  as  in  llio  case  of  ^a-atuitous  l)ail(>('s,  and  it 
is  more  conrct  and  si-ientiHc  to  dcliuo  ihv  logroos  of 
care  than  the  doixivcs  of  nculiu'cnce."  (ilhlhi  v.  Mc- 
3Ji(II('P,'-^  was  a  case  iioainst  a  l)anU  as  u-ratnitous  bailoe.s 
of  a  (|uantily  of  railroad  dclx'uttu'cs  wliicli  were  stolen 
by  its  servants,  L(»rd  Cliaiiccllor  C'm:i,:\isi'()i!i),  while 
indorsing  the  expression  of  Kom'k,  li.,  in  M7/.sv>/t  r. 
Ji ref f, "  ih(yu<x\\\  thai  the  terms  "uross,  ordinary  and  slinht" 
mijxht  he  nsefnlly  retained  as  tleseriptive  of  the  practical 
difference  hotween  Ihe  de<jfrees  of  neiiliji'enee  for  which  dif- 
ferent classes  of  bailees  are  responsible. 

In  llhiton  V.  Dih/tiii,''  a  case  aiiainst  u  conunon  carrier 
of  ffoods,  Dknmax,  C.  J.,  said:  "  When  we  find  j^ross  ne«r- 
lijrence  made  the  criterion  to  determine  the  liabililv  of  u 
carrier  who  has  iriven  the  usual  notice,  it  mi<fhl,  perha}).s, 
have  been  reasonably  expected  that  somethinu'  like  a  definite 
meaning  should  have  been  jriven  to  the  (^\l)ression.  It  is 
believed,  however,  that  in  none  of  the  numerous  cases  upon 
this  subject  is  any  such  attemi)t  niiule  ;  and  it  may  well  bo 
doubted  whether  between  gross  negligence  and  negligenco 
any  intelligible  distinction  exists."  Ansfin  v.  ManchcMer 
i&c.  liailwcnj  Company^-^  was  an  action  against  a  railroad 
company  for  injury  to  hor.ses  which  it  was  transporting. 
By  the  contract  between  the  cani«  r  and  the  shipper  the 
former  was  exempted  from  lial)ilily  "  however  caused  to 
horses  or  cattle."  The  declaration  alleged  that  the  defend- 
ants failed  to  take  due  and  ])roper  cai-e  to  provide  against 
friction  of  the  wheels  and  axles  of  the  carriages  in  which 
the  horses  were,  but  grosslv  and  culi)ablv  nei>:Iectin<r  to  do 
so  the  wheels  of  the  carriages  took  lire  and  the  injury  com- 
plained of  was  sustained.  It  was  contended  for  the  plain- 
tiff that  the  exception  from  liability  contained  in  the  ton- 
tract  could  not  cover  wilful  misfeasance  which  was  char<red 

21L.  R. -iP.  C.  :U7  (ISGS). 

22  Supm. 

=«2Q.  B.  (ilfi  (1S42). 

2<11  Eiijr.  L.  &  Ell.  500  (lS.-)2). 


f'lr. 


VI.] 


XKOLIOKXCK. 


k;-) 


ill  tli<'  (l('cl:ir:ili(»n  under  tlic  ii.'iinc  of  {•uli)iil)l('  and  jxross 
ii,.Mliu(.|ic('.  liiil  the  courl  held  that  tlic  carrier  was  pro- 
tected by  the  eoiitraet  from  llie  eoiiseiiuenees  of  his  neiili- 
ireiiee,  and  was  therefore  not  liahl(>.  After  eitinji"  the  lan- 
^ua^rc  of  IVvvr-KV,  1'.,  in  Oicot  v.  litirnctt r''  "As  for  the 
oases  of  what  is  called  uross  neiilili"encc,  which  throws  upon 
the  carrier  the  responsibility  from  which,  but  for  that,  h" 
would  have  been  exempt,  I  believe  that  in  the  <j.reatcr  num- 
ber of  them  it  will  be  foun<l  that  the  carrier  was  u'uilty  of 
misfeasance,"'-"  ("uksswkll,  ,F.,  who  ilelivered  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  said  :  "  Such  certainly  were  the  (iases  of  delivery 
to  the  wronir  persi^i.  sendinj:;  by  a  Avronjjf  coach  or  carrying" 
beyond  the  place  to  which  the  j^oods  were  consigned.  IJut 
this  observation  wili  not  explain  all  the  decisions  on  the 
sul)ject.  Ther(>  are  others  in  which  the  carrier  has  been 
h(dd  liable  for  such  negligence  as  Avarranted  the  court  in 
holding  that  he  had  put  off  that  character.  But  there  is 
nothing  in  this  declaration  amounting  to  a  charge  of  mis- 
feasance  or  renunciation  of  the  character  in  which  the  de- 
fendants received  the  goods.  The  charge  is  that  they  ought 
to  have  taken  precaution  to  guard  against  the  conso(|uences 
of  friction  of  whecds  and  axles,  and  that  they  did  not  do  so, 
and  were  guilty  of  gross  negligence  in  not  doing  so.  The 
terujs 'i^ross  ne<>lii>"ence'  and 'culpal)le  negligence'  can  not  ul- 
t«'r  the  nature  of  the  thinir  omitted,  nor  can  thev  exaggerate 
such  omission  into  an  act  of  misfeasance  or  reiumeiation  of 
the  character  in  which  they  received  the  horses  to  be  carried. 
The  (piestion,  therefore,  still  turns  upon  the  contract, 
which,  in  express  terms,  exempts  the  company  fnun  i-i'spou- 
sibility  for  damages  however  caused,  to  horses,  &v.  In  the 
largest  sense  tiiose  words  might  exonerate  the  company  from 
responsibility  even  for  damage  tlone  wilfully,  a  sense  in  which 
it  was  not  contendetl  that  they  were  used  in  this  contract  ; 

*•••_•  cr.  i^  M.  ;{.■))  (is:u). 

'^  N'c^lifji'iu'c  (lifters  from  iiiisfcasaiii'*!  in  this,  tliut  the  former  takes 
plact'  ill  liiL'  performance  of  tlie  contract,  while  ttie  lutteris  done  in  di- 
rect eontiineiition  of  it.     Aii";.  on  Car.  sec.  12. 


Kw; 


THE  CONTUACTS  OF  CAKKIKKS. 


CM.   VI.] 


'  I!   ' 


but  jiivinj;'  thom  the  most  limitod  nioaniiifr,  they  must  applj 
to  all  risks  of  whatovor  kind  ami  howovor  arisinir,  to  lu'  cn- 
countorod  in  the  course  of  the  journey,  one  of  wiiich  is 
undoubtedly  the  risk  of  the  wheel  takiiiir  tire,  owin^  to  ne<i;- 
leet  to  "reuse  it.  Whether  this  is  ealled  '  neujlijijonce  ' 
nirrely,  or  '  gross  neglijrence  '  or  '  eulpal)le  neglifjonee  '  or 
whatever  other  epithet  may  be  applied  to  it,  we  think  it  is 
within  the  exemption  from  responsibility  i)rovided  hy  the 
contraet,  and  that  such  exeujption  appeariiiir  on  the  face  of 
the  declaration  no  cause  of  action  is  declared." 

§  I'M).  The  American  Doctrine. — The  cases  in  which  the 
distinction  has  been  rejected  in  our  own  courts  are  too  nu- 
merous to  set  out  in  this  place,  and  it  will  therefore  l)e  suf- 
ficient to  refer  to  the  languaji-e  of  the  Subreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  stating  the  American  doctrine  on  this  sub- 
ject. It  was  said  by  that  court  as  early  as  1S")2:  "When 
carriers  undertake  to  convey  i)ersons  by  the  powerful  but 
dangerous  agency  of  steam,  public  pcdiiy  and  safety  reipiin^ 
that  they  be  held  to  the  greatest  possible  care  and  diligence. 
And  whether  the  consideration  for  such  trans[)ortation  be 
pecuniary  or  otherwise,  the  personal  safety  of  the  passen- 
gers should  not  be  left  to  the  s[)ort  of  chance  or  the  negli- 
gence of  careless  agents.  Any  negligence  in  such  cases 
may  well  deserve  the  epithet  of  'gross.'  '"-'  "  The  theory  that 
there  are  three  degrees  of  lu^gligence  described  by  the  terms 
slight,  ordinary  and  gross,"  says  Mr.  .Justice  Ci  irns,  in 
The  JYem  Worhl  r.  Kinrj^'^  "  lias  been  introdu'-cd  into  the 
common  law  from  some  of  the  commentators  on  the  Roman 
hiw.  It  may  he  doubted  if  these  terms  can  be  usefully  ap- 
plied in  j)ractice.  Their  meaning  is  not  Jixed  or  <'apal)le  of 
being  so.  One  degree  thus  described  not  only  may  be  con- 
founded with  another,  but  it  is  quite  impracticabh^  exactly 
to  distinguish  them.  Their  signitication  necessarily  varies 
according  to  circumstant-es,  to  whose  iiiHui'nce  the  court  has 
been  forced  to  yield  until  there  are  so  many  real  exceptions 

"^  Pliiladclpliia  II.  ('.).  v.  Kiiifj.  11  How.  AC,<. 
s^KJIlow.  4(J!)  (ls.-);»). 


cir.  vr.] 


NEOLIGENCR. 


167 


or 
t  is 
tho 

of 


thiit  the  rules  tluMuselvos  ciui  sciinu'ly  bo  said  to  hiivc  ii  gen- 
eral operation."  Finally,  in  the  gresit  case  of  liailroad 
Compani/  v.  Lock  wood,-'  Mr.  Justiee  Bradley  gave  the 
opinion  of  the  whole  eourt  in  this  language:  "  Strietly 
speaking,  these  expressions  are  indicative  rather  of  the  de- 
gree of  care  and  diligence  which  is  due  from  a  party  and 
which  he  fails  to  perforin,  than  of  the  amount  of  inatten- 
tion, carelessness  or  stupidity  wiru'h  he  exhibits.  If  very 
little  care  is  due  from  Uini,  and  he  fails  to  bestow  that  lit- 
tle, it  is  called  gross  negligence.  If  very  great  care  is  due, 
and  he  fails  to  come  up  to  the  mark  recjuired,  it  is  called 
slight  negligence.  And  if  ordinary  care  is  due,  such  as  a  pru- 
dent niiin  would  exercise  in  his  own  affairs,  failure  to  bestow 
tluit  amount  of  care  is  called  ordinary  negligence.  In  such 
ease  the  negligence,  whatever  e})ithet  we  give  it,  is  failure 
to  bestow  the  care  and  skill  which  i '  situation  demands  ; 
and  hence  it  is  more  strictly  accurate  pcrhai)s  to  call  it  sim- 
])ly  '  negligence.'  And  this  seems  to  be  the  tendency  of 
modern  authorities.  If  they  mean  more  than  this,  and 
seek  to  abolish  the  distinction  of  degrees  of  care,  skill  and 
diligence  rcMpiired  in  the  performance  of  various  duties  and 
the  fultillment  of  various  contracts,  we  think  the}"  go  too 
far  ;  since  the  rc(|uirement  of  different  degi'ees  of  care  in 
differeni  situations  is  too  firndy  st'ttled  and  tixed  in  the  law 
to  l)e  ignored  or  clianged.  The  compilers  of  the  French 
civil  code  undertook  to  abolish  these  distinctions  by  enact- 
ing that  'cviM'v  act  wli:itever  of  man  that  causes  damage  to 
another,  obliges  him  by  whose  fault  it  hai)i)ened  to  repair 
it.'  Toullier,  in  his  commentary  on  the  code,  regards  this 
as  a  ha[)py  thought  antl  a  return  to  the  law  of  nature.  But 
.such  an  iron  rule  is  too  regardless  of  the  foundation  princi- 
ples of  human  duty,  and  must  often  operate  with  great 
severity  and  injustice.  In  the  case  before  us,  the  law,  in 
the  al)sence  of  special  contract,  tixes  the  degree  of  care  and 
diligence  due  from  the  railroad  company  to  the  persons  car- 
ried on  its  trains,  A  failure  to  exercise  such  care  and  dili- 
'^  17  Wall.  ;5.-)7  (1S7;5). 


Vi' 


''^) 


W4 


lf)8 


TlIF,  CONTKACTS  OF  CAIMiir.IIS. 


[CII.   VI. 


.- 

ml 

Ih 

■Hi'  - 

1.;  ■■ 

m: 

i .-  ■ 

m' 

^^■ 

m 

U^ 

gonco  is  iu'gli,ii<'ii('e.  It  lun'cls  no  cpilli'.'t  propcM'Iy  and  Ic- 
ijiillv  to  dcscrilx-  it.  Jf  it  is  iinaiiist  tlif  |)()ii('y  of  the  law 
to  allow  stiimlatioiis  which  will  relieve  the  company  t'nmi 
the  exercise  of  that  care  and  diligence,  oi-  which  in  other 
words  will  excuse  them  for  neuligence  in  the  performance 
of  that  duty,  then  the  company  remains  liahle  for  such  n(\<i- 
liirenee.  The  (luestiou  whether  the  companv  was  nuillv  of 
neuliufencc  in  this  case  which  caused  the  injurv  sustained  hv 
the  pl.vintiff,  was  fairly  left  to  thcjury.  It  was  unnecessary 
to  tell  ihem  whe'.her,  in  the  language  of  law  writers,  such 
neiiliuence  would  he  called  gross  or  orilinary."  These  au- 
thoritive  utteninees  must  effectually  settle  the  (|uesti()n. 
The  degrees  of  negligence  should  he  s|)olven  of  no  longer  iu 
the  case  of  common  carriers.  The  ahsence  of  care  accord- 
ing to  circumstances  is  sutHeient  to  r<'nder  them  liahle  for 
broaches  of  duty,  and  the  term  "gross,"  if  used  at  all  can 
only  he  used  as  a  "  vituperative  e[)ithet."  In  this  sense  it 
may  properly  he  used  iu  eases  involving  the  (juestion  of 
contributory  negligence,  and  in  eases  where  the  question  of 
exemplary  damages  may  arise  for  determination.  But  iu 
uo  other. 

§  lyi.  Power  to  Contract  Aijainst  Xcifiifjence  —  In  Eng- 
land.—  It  has  been  seen  that  in  Kngland,  until  the  passage 
of  the  Currier's  Act,  carrii^rs  were  allowed  either  by  notice 
or  contract  to  exclude  all  responsibility  whatever'"' — a  doc- 
triuc  first  announced  by  Lord  ELLK\Houou<m  in  Maving  v. 
Todd-'  and  Leeson  v.  Jfolt:^'^  In  Maving  v.  Todd,  the  car- 
riers had  given  notice  that  their  lial)ility  should  not  extend 
to  a  loss  by  tire.  The  plaintiffs  counsel  submitted  that  the 
defendants  could  not  exclude  their  i-esponsibility  altogether, 
as  this  was  going  further  than  had  been  yet  done  in  the  case 
of  carriers  who  had  onlv  limited  their  responsibility  to  a 
certain  amount.  Lord  Ellkxuouolhhi  :  *' Since  they  can 
limit  it  to  a  particular  sum,  I  think  they  may  exclude  it  al- 

*  Antr.,  Cap.  II.  §  2.-). 
•■»  1  Stark.  72  (181.")). 
•■»  1  Stark.  ISO  (ISIO). 


CU.  V 


■] 


NKOLKiKNTl 


IC!) 


tou'cllii'r,  and  l!i;it  tlu'V  iii:iy  s;iy,  we  will  have  notliini;  to 
do  with  lire,  'ilicv  lUiiy  imiUt"  ilicir  own  Icniis.  I  am  soiiy 
tli('  jjiw  is  so,  it  leads  to  vt'iT  irrcat  lux/liiiciu't'."  In  /jcckoh 
r.  Iloll  the  carriers  had  uiveu  notice  that  theu'oods  wonid  ho 
entirely  at  the  risk  of  the  owneis.  liord  Ki.MOMJoijouoit 
said:  '•  11"  this  action  had  heen  l)roniiht  twenty  years  aji'o, 
the  defendant  would  have  heen  liahle,  since  l)y  the  connnon 
law  a  carrier  is  liahle  in  all  c:\ses  except  two.  It  was 
found  that  the  coninion  lawiin[)osed  upon  carriers  a  liability 
of  ruinous  extent,  and  in  conse(pience  (|ualiticalions  and 
limitations  of  that  lial)ilily  have;  heen  introduced  from  tinio 
to  time  till,  as  in  the  present  case,  they  seem  to  have 
excluded  :dl  responsil)ility  whatsoever,  .so  that  under  the 
terms  of  the  present  notice  if  a  ser\ant  of  the  carriers  had 
in  the  most  wilful  and  wanton  maimer  destroyed  the  furni- 
ture intrusted  to  him,  tlie  princii)als  would  not  have  been 
liable.  If  the  parties  in  the  prescMit  ease  have  so  eontructcid 
the  plaintiff  must  abide  by  the  agreement,  and  he  must  bo 
taken  to  havi;  so  contracted  if  he  chooses  to  send  his  goods 
to  1)0  (tarried  after  notice  of  the  conditions." 

§  132.  Power  to  Contntrt  Af/ain.st  Xegligouce  —  In 
America. —  In  this  country,  on  the  other  hand,  though  a 
common  carrier  may  limit  his  liability  as  an  insurer,  ho  is 
not  al')wed  to  contract  against  the  eonse(juences  of  his  own 
negligence  or  that  of  his  servants  or  agents.  This,  though 
dei)arted  from  in  New  York  ami  West  Virginia,  is  the  Amer- 
ican doctrines  For  a  fuller  statement  of  this  princii)lo  and 
the  decisions  made  thereunder,  the  reader  is  referred  to  tho 
second  chapter  of  this  book.'" 

§  l.'>;}.  FoiJuve  to  Apprise  Carrier  of  Vohie  and  Contents.. 
—  liut  ev(Mi  in  England  it  was  re({uired  of  common  carriers 
if  they  sought  to  limit  their  liability  for  their  own  or  their 
servants'  negligence  that  the  notice  to  that  eifoct  should  be 
explicit ;  so  that  persMis  with  whom  they  dealt  could  un- 
derstand the  conditions  upon  which  the  goods  were  re- 
ceived. Thus  a  notice  that  tho  carrier  would  not  be  answer- 
's Jntc,  Cap.  II.  §§  '.w-Gr, 


170 


TlIK  CONTKACTH  OF  CAUUIKKS. 


[CII.  VI. 


able  for  j)!ii'<'('ls  iihovo  the  value  of  ,£'),  unless  an  additional 
l)rlee  was  paid,  was  held  not  to  reU-ase  him  from  liability 
for  the  loss  of  a  |)arcel  of  more  than  that  value,  on  which 
the  additional  price  was  not  paid,  when^  such  loss  was  oc- 
casioned bv  the  <rross  ne<rli;^ence  of  hiniscll  or  his  servants.'" 
In  Newborn  v.  Jusf,'^''  the  dc^fendant  who  kept  an  otiice  for 
the  purpose  of  receivinjj:  trunks  to  be  conveyed  by  ( iirriers 
to  various  places,  was  sued  for  the  value  of  a  truidi  which 
had  been  delivered  to  him  but  had  not  been  received 
at  its  destination.  The  declaration  averri'd  ncjrliijfence.  It 
was  proved  that  there  Avas  a  notice  posted  at  the  house 
statinj;  that  the  defendant  would  not  be  answerabh;  for 
goods  over  the  value  of  £')  un'ess  specially  paid  for,  and  it 
was  admitted  that  the  trunk  and  contents  were  worth  more 
than  that  sum.  The  defendant  relied  on  tiie  notice.  Hkst, 
C.  J. :  "I  don't  think  the  notice  will  assist  you  ;  you  are  not 
in  the  situation  of  a  carrier.  Vou  arc  not  an  insurer.  The 
notice  is  to  protect  from  insurance.  Hut  it  has  been  decided 
over  and  over  a«;ain  that  notice  does  not  protect  a  carrier 
ai^ainst  neuiijrence,  and  your  client  can  only  b(!  lial)le  for 
ne<rliu:<Mice."  Wihle,  Sent.  :  "  Mv  client  not  beintr  bound 
to  receive  parcels  at  all  may  by  contract  limit  his  responsi- 
bility." Hkst,  C.  ,].  :  "Then  your  client  must  L^ive  distinct 
notice  to  that  effect;  and  if  the  public  were  told  that  lie 
would  not  be  liable  either  for  ncirlijicnce  of  himself  or  his 
servants,  he  would  not  have  many  persons  trust  him."  TIk^ 
verdict  went  for  the  plaintiff.  Similarly  it  has  always 
been  held  in  this  country  that  a  common  carrier  is  liable  for 
the  value  of  the  uoods  lost  throujjfh  his  nciiliiicnce,  notwith- 
standing the  bill  of  lading  jjrovides  that  he  shall  not  be  lia- 
ble beyond  an  amount  named  therein,  when  the  true  value  is 


m 

at; 


•■'<  Birkott  V.  Willaii.  2  Barn.  &  AUl.r.O  (lSl!t) ;  Bock  v.  Evans.  lU'ainp. 
2(i8  (1S12) :  Mai'klin  v.  Watcrlionsc.  5  Bin;;.  --'12.  2  M.  it  I'.  IM!)  (1S28) ; 
Bodcnliani  v.  Bcniu'tt.  I  I'rici'.  :n  (1S17) ;  Uilcy  v.  Iloiiic.  5  Bin.!,'.  217.  2 
M.  &  V.XU  (1S2S);  (J()ii;:crv.  .lolly.  Molt.  :n7  (ISK!):  Kt-rr  v.  AVillan, 
IIolt.(i4:{  (1S17):  Wyld  v.  I'k'kforil.  H  .M.  &  AV.    JKJ  (1841). 

a52C.&P.  7G  (1825). 


<l 


r.  V..] 


NIUSLIOKNCK. 


171 


ii(»t  jxivi'M  or  when  it  is  understood  l)y  the*  parties  that  tho 
sum  so  a<;r('t>d  on  is  less  than  tiu-  value  of  the  ^oods.  Sueh 
ajrreenieiits  can  at  most  only  cover  a  loss  arisinjf  from  .some 
<  ause  other  than  the  nej^liji'enee  or  default  of  the  carrier  or 
his  servants,  and  the  rule  of  dainaires  is  the  same,  althouirh 
less  is  charired  and  paid  for  the  transjjortation  than  when 
the  <'xeini)linjjr  clause  is  omitted.''" 

§    I'M.    ('oiitn'hiifori/    Ncijliiji'iur   of   liailov. —  Hut    tho 
omission  to  state  the  value  of  an  article  when  called  upon 


\    \ 


■'"  I'liitcd  Stall's  Kxprt'ss  C'dinpaiiy  v.  Hadiman.  2S()hio  St.  Ill  (lS7r>) ; 
Adams  Kxprcss  Co.  v.  Stt'ttaiicis.  (il  III.  |S1  (1.S7I);  Now  Jersey  Sleaiii 
\a\.  Cii.  V.  Mcicliaiits  Hank.  (!  How.  :ill  (1S»S);  (iiacc  v.  Adams.  100 
Mass.  ."lO.")  (I.S(iS);  Davidson  v.  (iialiam. -J  Ohio  St.  llfl  (IS.VI);  Gialmm 
V.  Davis,  4  Id.  'MVl  (lS.-)4) ;  .liidsoii  v.  Wosiciii  K.  ( 'o..  (J  Allen  4S.-)  (|SO;i) ; 
Mi.lii;,'an  \c.  K.  Co.  v.  Ilcatoii.  :?7  liid.  IIS  (1S7I) ;  l.amli  v.  Camden  Ji. 
<'<>..  10  \.  Y  :i71  (1S7-J) :  .Vmeiiean  Kxpress  Co.  v.  Sands.  .V.  I'a.  St.  140 
(|S(i7).  Where  ilicre  Is  an  express  stipulation  limiting  tlie  responsibility 
of  a  carrier  for  t»a;;y:aj;e  to  a  specilied  sum.  tliis  w  ill  not  exempt  the  ear- 
riei-  from  lialiility  for  the  ne;i;li;.jenee  oi'  malfeasanee  of  himself  or  his 
servants.  Mohile  i^e.  K.Co.v.  n<iiikins.41  Ala.  ISO  ( IS(IS).  I'laintiff  deliv- 
ered loan  express  company  a  packajie  for  transimrtation.  and  received  a 
receipt  providing;  that  the  company  should  not  he  liahle  for  any 
loss  (u-  damaixe  ••  to  any  hox.  packa;;e  or  other  thini;  for  over  tlfty  dol- 
lars, unless  the  trin-  value  thereof  is  herein  stated."  It  was  held  that 
this  condition  did  not  include  a  loss  occa>ioned  hy  the  ne;;li;;ence  of  the 
<'ompany.  Westcott  v.  Far;,'o.  01  N.  Y.  r)42  (1S7.">);  Westcott  v.  Far^o. 
o:!  Harh.  lUlt.  s.<\,  (!  Lan-^.  :tl!»  (Is72).  Whi^re  an  express  company  f^ave 
a  frei;;ht  receipt  foi' <'i;;ht  boxes  of  boots  and  shoes  with  tlie  stipulation 
'■valued  under  tifly  dollars  unless  other\\is(>  licrein  stated :"   VA'/i/.  that 

tl xpress    eiMiipany    coidd    not    exonorate    itself    ivv\n  liability    for 

any  uciilect.by  an\  such  stipulation,  even  if  it  should  be  considered 
that  the  words  of  the  I'cceipt  amountecl  to  such  a  covenant ;  b\it  to  allow 
such  a  limitation  in  cases  of  n-ross  neulect  and  conversion,  would  recoj;:- 
nize  tlieir  ri;rhf  to  convert  other  people's  property  to  their  own  use  al 
their  own  price.  Orndortf  v.  Adams  Kxpress  Co.,  :$  Hush.l!)4  (IS(17).  \ 
clause  in  a  ciuitracl  between  an  express  company  ami  a  shipper  stated 
that  jjoods  shipped  are  of  the  value  of  ••^."lO,  unless  their  value  should  be 
inserted  in  the  conti'acl.  and  that  the  company  in  case  of  loss  would  not 
lie  liable  for  more  tlian  .'s,-|(l.  unless  the  value  was  so  inserted,  and  the 
value  of  the  <i;oods  was  not  inserted,  llihl.  that  this  did  not  relieve  the 
comitany  fi'om  liability  for  the  full  value  of  the  j:;oo(ls  if  lost  tlirouufh 
its  fault,  and  that  a  iu-csuni|)tioii  of  ne^ilif^ence  arose  from  the  mere  fact 
of  loss.  Kirby  v.  .\dam-^  Kxpiess  Co.,  2  Mo.  (Ai)p.)  ;{0!»,  ;{  Cent.  L.  .1. 
4:to  (1870). 


1 


IIIK  COXTIJACTS  OI    CAIMMKItS. 


[cir.  VI. 


l>v  til*'  Itiiilt'c  m;iy  MMioiiiit  lo  ((uitrilmtdry  nc-jrliiri'in'c  on  llic 
part  (if  till' l)!iil(tr,  ami  iiiiiy  l»i' ii  liar  lo  his  action  tor  (jic 
ncuiiirciiff  of  lln'  lan-icr.  In  LSl^o,  IJavi.kv,  .1.,  remarked 
thai  in  addilion  to  seeurin'jf  a  reward  lo  the  carrier  in  pro- 
portion to  the  ri>U  which  he  luuh'i'look,  notices  rciiniriiii;; 
the  (lisehisure  (»f  the  contents  aM<l  vahie  of  artich-s  deliv- 
ered foi' carriap'  miii'lit  properly  l>e  said  to  have  a  furlher 
olijeet,  vi/.  :  to  cnalilc  tiie  carrier  to  put  parcels  of  ihc 
<;r«'atest  value  in  a  place  of  the  <:reatest  security.  The 
value  is  a  temptation  to  thieves  to  make  attempts  which 
hut  for  that  value  they  would  not  make.  The  omission  to 
state  tile  value  may  prevent  th<'  ( airier  from  takiuii'  that 
care  which  in  the  ca-^e  of  properly  of  extraordinary  value 
he  naturally  would  take.  'I'hal  may  lie  neij;li;.''enee  in  the 
case  of  a  paekaire  of  larL'<'  value  which  would  l»e  car*'  in  the 
ease  of  a  parcel  of  small  value.  'Ihis  reasoning"  has  heen 
applied  in  recent  eases,  'i'hus  it  has  heen  h.  Id  hy  tin? 
Supreme  Court  of  thi'  Tniled  States  that  if  an  exjiress 
company  have  a  settled  iind  uniform  I'ule  that  money  paek- 
u<res  imist  he  sealed  and  indorsi-d  in  a  pai'ticular  manner, 
and  notice  tliereof  is  hrouulit  houu^  to  '"le  consiirnoi' who 
neglects  to  comply  with  it,  and  the  com})any,  in  iiruorance 
of  Its  spei'ial  value,  takt'  only  ordinary  caiu'  of  the  pa<-ka<re, 
it  will  not  he  lialde  for  its  joss.'''  in  l\<ini<sl  r.  l-J.ipri'S)i 
Cohipaiii/,'^  a  small  i)areel  containing;  four  diamond  riujjfs 
wtis  delivered  to  an  express  company,  the  owner  who  was 
aware  of  the  reirulation  of  the  company  as  to  additional 
charges  on  articles  ahove  the  value  of  $.'>(),  refusing  to  statu 
its  contents.  Packages  of  value  wer(\  according  to  custom, 
when  received  hy  tlu  company  placed  in  sealed  pouches  and 
these  again  in  an  iron  safe  ;  unvalued  parcels  were  some- 
times placed  in  a  wooden  l»ox  and  sometimes  thrown  to- 
gether upon  the  Hoor  of  the   car.     The  i)laiutiff's  package 

^  Ante,  (.';ii).  IV,  §  Wi;  Kailioad  Co.  v.  Miiimfiictiiriiif;  Co..  1(1  Wall.  IJIS 
(1872). 

•■«  1  Wooils,  .-.7;»  (187:5).  mid  sec  St.  J. .ha  v.  Kxprc.-.s  Co..  I  Woods.  012 
(1871). 


IT 


lo 


l(> 


IS 


(II. 


■'■] 


NKCI.KlKNfK 


17;5 


lii\iii'>'  I II  trr.'ilctl  liv  lilt'  I'Mrricr  us  of  tlic  Ijiltcr  cImss  was 


S:(» 


Icii.      It  was  lidd  lliiit  lie  WHS  iiol   ciilitlcd  t<»  rccoNcr  li 


\(Hi(l  till'  liflv   (Inllai's. 

Jj  1 ;;.').  Till'  Hull' ill  Xt'ii'  Vfir/,'. —  Wliili-  it  is  cstahlisluMl 
ill  New  York  tlial  (•(•iiinioii  carriers  mav  l»v  special  contract 
e\<'iii|)t  tliciiiseives  t'roiii  iial)ility  \'nv  losses  arisiuji;  from  the 
n  ■.i:iiizeiice  of  llieii- servants  or  aireiils,'"'  siicli  II  eoiitraet  it 
lias  Iteeii  aL:aiii  and  auain  said  can  only  he  evidenced  Uy 
jilaiii  and  umnistakahle  laiiiriiap'.  >N'liere  a  loss  occasioned 
li\  tlie  cari'h'ssness  or  neL;Ti;^('iice  ol'  a  carrier  or  his  a/jfents 
or  servants  is  not  mentioned  in  terms  in  the  contract,  (ho 
law  will  not  |iresume  that  a  loss  so  occasioned  was  intended 
l)V  the  parties,'"  Tlins  where  <roods  are  sent  at  "  owner's 
lisk  "  the  carri<r  will  still  he  lial)le  for  any  lo.ss  or  damaj^c 
occasioned  hy  the  nejjflijift'iice  of  himself  or  his  servaiit? 
aiul  so  where  hy  the  c(!ntract  the  carrier  wa.s  rcleasod  "from 
all  cliiims,  demands  ami  liahilities  of  every  kind  whatever, 
for  or  on  account  of,  or  comiecte(l  with,  any  damage  or  in- 
jury to  or  the  loss  of  said   slock  or  any  [)ortion    thereof 


^■'  Ant<'.  ("ap.  II.  ^  .•.,•). 

♦' Kiicll  V.  I'liilvd  Statt<  i»cc.  Slcimishlp  Co..  lilS  \.  Y.  (S.  C.)  4-2H 
(ISTl) ;  Kt'cnc.v  v.  (Jraiitl  Trmik  U.  (..'(>..  .">!(  Marl).  101  (1S70). 

<|  M.M.if  V.  Kvaiis.  1 1  IJaii).  .".21  (1S.")2);  Alcxuiidcr  v.  (Jrccnc,  7  Hill, 
r.;i:!(isirj;  Wclls  v.  steam  .Nav.  ("O..S  \.  Y.  ;{7.">  (is.'i:tj:  Wcsicdtt  V. 
Karj^o.  Cili  IJarh.  :m:i  (1S72);  Woodi-ii  v.  Aiislln.  ,"il  Ilail).  !t  (ISdd). 
rriiilcil  iKitii'i'  iiiit  u|i  on  a  boat  that  all  liafj:;ja>ii'  1>  at  risk  of  tlic  owiiciv, 
alllioiii^li  it  is  Itroiifxlii  liomc  io  tlic  owiit'f.  does  not  t'xciiso  tlic  carfior 


41 


from  losses  aiisiiiit  from  llie  ai 


Is  of  liimseii'  or  iii- 


servaiits.  nor  from  ae- 


liial  iie;;li;ienee.  nor  Die  iiiellleieiiey  of  liis  macliiiieiv  or  vehicles,  tlioii;jh 
it  can  not  l)e  discovered  iiy  the  eye.  Camden  Hailioad  Ac.  Co.  v.  JJufke, 
i:MVeinl.  (ill  (is;(.")).  "It  is  clear,  thereloie.  that  the  same  care  and 
dilij^enci^  svliicli  would  excuse  tlie  carrieis  in  case  of  at'cideiit  to  jtassen- 
jjers  would  not  excuse  them  in  ease  of  damage  to  or  loss  of  goods.     In 


ti 


II'  ease  i)f  ixissrin/irs  the  carriers  ai'e  responsil)le  only  for  neiijljgonce, 
l)Ut  in  respect  of  their  Iukjijuiji'  they  are  responsiitle  as  common  carriers, 
ami  accidenl  is  no  excuse."  Tiie  court  said  thiit  the  notice  exonsed  the 
I'arriers  from  losses  li;ippeni!i  hy  means  of  the  eondiict  of  others,  from 
rolil)ei'v  or  Jarcenv.  hut  ii  it  trom  such  losses  as  arose  from  tlie  acts  of 
themselves  or  M"ir  servants,  llollister  v.  Nowlen,  It)  Wend.  2o4,  (ls;tS)  ; 
Cole  V.  (ioodwiii.  Id.  2.'.1  ns;{S). 


^'i^^ 


,: 


174 


THE  CONTHACT8  OF  CAllIUEUS. 


[CII.   VI. 


from  whatever  causo  arising;"  *'  and  an  ajrrceniont  l)etweou 
a  carrier  of  persons  and  a  passenijer,  providing"  that  the  hitter 
shall  take  "the  risk  of  injurv  from  whalever  eause,"  does 
not  exempt  the  carrier  from  lial)ility  for  the  Avant  of  ordi- 
nary care.*'  Other  examples  mii>ht  be  uiven  wiierc  the 
same  rule  has  lieeii  api)lit'd,  alliioiiuh  the  laniiuaiiv  used 
seems  broad  enouiih  to  cover  ncirliiicnce  ;  as  "  at  the  risk  of 
the  master  or  owners  '"  ^^  or  "damage  or  loss  to  any  article 
by  fire."« 

§  13(j.  Disconhnif  DfcisiouK. — 'I'wo  late  cases  in  that  State 
entirelv  ignoi'c  the  rule  thus  laid  down.  In  (.'ra<i'nt  r.  Xcin 
York  C'oifral  Jiallroatl  Conipdiii/,^'''  the  defendant  contract- 
ed to  cany  a  car  load  of  hogs  from  IJuffaio  to  All)iUiy,  un- 
der an  agreement  whereby  the  ship})er  assumed  the  risks  of 
injuries  from  "  heat,  suffocation,  ttc."  The  hogs  died 
from  the  effects  of  heat,  the  result  of  the  negligence  of  the 
defendant's  servants  in  not  watering  tiiem  and  cooling  them 
by  Avetting.  The  Commission  of  Api)eals  held  that  the 
d<?fendants,  as  connnon  carriers  of  c:ittle,  were  not  insurers 
of  them  against  the  conseiiuenccs  of  their  own  vitality.  In 
the  absence  of  any  restrictive  contract,  if  the  defendants 
provided  })roper  cars  and  exercised  reasonable  care,  they 
were  not  responsible  for  such  of  the  animals  as  might  per- 
ish from  heat.     Therefore  the  limitation  was  unnecessary. 

«  Mynard  v.  SyraiMiso  &c.  U.  Co..  71  X.  Y.  ISO  (1S77).  n'vcr.s'm;?  7 
linn. :{!»!!  (1S7(;). 

«  Smith  V.  New  York  Cent.  K.  Co..  20  I$arl>.  i;!2  (IS.JD).  Coinparo 
Koswcll  V.  llndson  Sic.  R.  Co..  5  Bosw.  (i!llt,  n.  r..   10  Alii).  I'r.  1)2  (iS(iO). 

«  Alt'xanilcr  v.  (ircciic.  7  Hill.  "ilW  (1S|  (). 

*''Tlie  i)laintiff  shiiipcd  floods  over  the  road  of  tlio  dofcndant :  by  a 
clan?!'  in  the  bill  of  lading  tlio  dofcndant  wa-s  rtdcasod  from  liability 
'•  from  damiij^c  or  loss  to  any  article  by  fire."  'I'lic  jjoods  wen;  lost  by 
fire  commnnicatcd  by  sparks  which  caiijjht  from  an  cmiinc  on  the  Irain 
on  which  the  fi'oods  were  rarricil.  Ft  was  held  that  thi'  defendant  wa.s 
li.ibic  for  loss  arisin;?  from  lire;  caused  i)y  its  ncixli^<'ii('e  or  thatof  its  ser- 
vants, whether  the  nei;li<^en('c  was  slight  or  f:;ross,  and  that  if  the  tin' 
'^•Vinated  in  defet'ts  of  the  machinery  of  the  ili^fendant,  the  defendant 
was  liable  for  the  loss.     Steinweg  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  4:5  X.  Y.,  123  (1.S70). 

«51N.  Y.  01  (1872). 


(•II.  VI.] 


NRCLICKNCK. 


175 


"If  it  be  held,"  said  Eaiu-,  ('.,  "  tliat  tliis  stipulation 
simply  exenii)ls  llio  dofVndant  from  liability  for  injuries  to 
the  h(\ns  from  heat  Avithout  any  fault  on  its  part,  then  it 
•rets  nolhinir;  for  in  such  case,  without  tlie  stipulation  it 
would  not  be  responsible.  Force  and  effect  can  be  given  to 
this  stipulation  only  by  holdinif  that  it  was  intended  to  ex- 
empt tlie  defendant  from  neuliu'enc(!  in  e()nse<[ueneo  of 
which  the  hogs  died  from  heat."  In  A/c/i(jhis  v.  Xew 
Yoi'h  (Unitral  <t*c.  UdUroml  (Utuijumi/,  '"  the  i)laintiff 
shipped  l>y  the  (h'fcndant"s  road,  in  the  Mionth  of 
Marcii,  a  (juantity  of  fruit  trees,  to  be  transi)orted 
from  New  York  to  (Jeneva.  At  the  time  of  shipment 
he  cxei'Uted  a  release  to  defendant  from  liability  for  loss  or 
"  damage  to  perishable  i)roper(y  of  all  kinds,  occasioned  by 
delays  from  any  cause,  or  change  of  weather,  or  loss  or  in- 
juiy  by  tire  or  water,  heat  or  cold."  The  release  was  con- 
strued l)v  the  Supreme  Court  to  relieve  the  defendant  from 
liability  for  a  loss  by  freezing  occasioned  I)v  the  negligenco 
of  the  defendant's  servants.  The  (.'r((;/in  case  was  iin'orsed, 
and  its  reasoning  followed.  Cold,  against  which  the  carrier 
could  not  guard,  was  the  '•  act  of  (iod,"  for  which,  at  com- 
mon law,  he  was  not  resj)onsii)le.  Again  it  is  said  that  "to 
give  any  foi'ce  to  the  terms  in  the  release"  the  risk  of  the 
carrier's  negligently  exposing  the  goods  to  the  cold  must  bo 
incor|)orated  in  the  release.  Jn  the  Court  of  Appeals  this 
ruling,  it  is  understo^xl,  has  been  recently  afHrincd  by  a  di- 
vided court,  but  the  case  has  not  yet  l)een  officially  reported. 
Of  both  these  decisions  it  may  be  said  that  they  are  without 
the  support  of  a  single  American  or  lOnglish  i)rccedent  and 
are  opjjosed  to  all  the  previous  adjudications  in  the  State 
v>^here  they  wer(>  made.  For  a  loss  occasioned  by  the  act  of 
rjod  or  the  publi«'  t-neiny  a  carrier  is  still  liable  if  it  bo 
lirought  about  by  his  own  negligence,  liut  if  these  rulings 
are  coirect,  the  simple  fact  thiit  the  bill  of  lading  or  other 
contract  sets  out  these  exemptions,  is  sufficient  to  excuse 
the  bailee  for  a  negligent  loss  of  this  description  ;  yet  no 
*'()  Tlionip.  &  V.  ()()(!,. s.  c,  4  IIuu,  3-27  (1S75). 


■J'K 


II    '       I 


W  I 


176 


THE  CONTHACT.S  OF  CAlHtlKKS. 


icu.  vr. 


cjisc  t'Mii  be  found  in  llu'  hooks   which  contains  even  u  hint 
of  such  a  doctrine. 

§  \iM .  O/Iicr  Cases  ill  llic  CavrlcKii'  of  Live  /Stock. —  In 
nearly  all  the  States  carriers  of  live  stock  are  hekl  to 
be  lial)le  as  common  i-arriers  and  to  he  insurers  to  the 
same  extent  as  when  eiiiraLied  in  the  transportation  of 
li'.Mieral  merchandise,  except  as  to  injuries  caused  l)y  the  ani- 
mals to  themselves  and  to  each  other.  Hut  even  where  the 
ride  is  different  thev  are  still  hekl  to  the  t-xercise  of  proper 
care.^"*  In  Ohio  and  Kentucky  a  railroad  com[)any  actinu"  as 
a  carrier  of  live  stock  can  not  contract  for  exemption  from 
responsibility  for  loss  arising'  by  its  own  nenlect  of  eluties 
incident  to  such  em})loyment.*'  A  s[)ecial  contract  devolv- 
inj;  on  the  owner  the  personal  care  of  the  cattle,  with  the 
risk  of  their  esea[)ing  or  beinjr  injured  throujiii  their  own  rest- 
iveness  or  vieiousness,  does  not  exonorate  the  co'upany  from 
responsibility  for  damaires  resulting  from  a  failure  to  pro- 
vide a  safe  car  for  their  transportation.''"  In  Michigan  where 
carriers  of  animals  are  not  regarded  as  eonnnon  carriers,  un- 
less the}'  have  specially  agreed  to  be  liable  as  such,  a  eon- 
tract  for  the  carriage  of  live  stock  exemi)ting  the  carrier  for 
losses  "  in  loading,  unh^ading,  e()nve3ance  and  otherwise, 
■whether  arising  from  negligence  or  otherwise,"  does  not 
exem})t  him  from  a  loss  caused  l)y  defective  cai's.'''  In 
AViseoniMii  a  carrier  of  live  stock  is  not  a  common  carrier  to 
the  full  extent,  and  may  exem[)t  himself  from  liability  for 
damage  to  them  during  transi)ortation /)v>;/i  ani/  cause.'''  Jn 
an  Indiana  case  a  contract  for  tlu;  carriage  of  live  stock 
provided  that  the  shii)[)er  was  to  bear  all  loss  by  their  "  es- 
caping."     Several    of  the  hogs  escaped   through   an  open 

♦SSoofOi^c.  Ciip.  I.  §  K). 

*■>  Welsh  V.  ritls))iii-^li  i<:c.  U.  Co..  If)  Ohio  St.  (m  (lS.-)t)) ;  Adams  Kx. 
Co.  V.  Nock.  -Diiv.  .")()2  (ISOO) ;  Louisville  &e.  R.  Co.  v.  lh;(l<,'('r,!)  IJush. 
G4.'>  (187:i). 

5"  Khotlcs  V.  Loiiisvillt"  &v.  U.  Co.  0  Bush.  (;s«  (lS7:i). 

«•  lluwkiiis  V.  Gri'iil  Wi'sti-rii  R.  Co.,  17  Mich.  57  ((180S) ;  (Jrcul  West- 
oni  K.  Co.  V.  lliiwkius.  is  Mich.  -127  (lS(i!l). 

s=i  Bells  V.  l-\irniers  Loiin  ilCc.  Co.,  21   Wis.  SO  (lSt3(i). 


»II.   V 


'•] 


M:(ii.i(iK\rK 


177 


window  ill  llic  ciiv.  iiiul  it  appc-u'cd  llial  after  only  one  lia<i 
fsca|)('(l  the  aiiciit  of  llic  slii|)|)('r  told  the  t'oiiduclor  of  tlic 
liaiii  lit  tlx  tlic  window,  wliidi  r('(|U('sl   he   failed  to  coinply 


Mltil. 


lie  can'iei"  was  lielc 


I  li: 


iDle 


111  a    New  York   c 


ISC 


the  owner  of  cattle  transported    on  a    railroad  assiinied   all 
risU  of  iiijiirv  to  tlieiii  "from  delays,  or  in  eoiiscfiiieiice  of 
lieat  or   the  ill  effei-ts  of  heiiiii-  crowded   in  the    ears."'   and 
he  agreed  to  load  and  unload  tlieiii  at  his  own  risk,  the  rail- 
road conipaiiy  to  furnish  the    iiecessai'v  lahoi'ers   to  assist. 
.'  ,f   i^ent  of  the  owner  was  (o  ride  free  and  lake  eharii'e  of 
the  cattle.     'I'lie  train  carryinii'  the  cattle  was  detained  at  an 
inleriiiediate   station   llirei'  days  i)y   a    snow    storm,    diirim^- 
which  the  trains  could  not  he  moved  with  safety.      The  cat- 
tle could  liave  been  unloaded  by  huildinuf  a  platform  for  the 
purpose,  hut  this  the  au'ent  of  the  eonipany  ret'us«'d  to  do. 
In   conse(|Ueiice  of  tlu'  delay  some   of  the    cattle  died    and 
others  weiH'  injured.     'I'he  court   held  that    under  this   con- 
tract the  company  was  only  hound  to  transport  the  cattle  in 
a  pro|)er  car,  safely  and  with   reasonal>le  dispatch.      ^^'Ilat- 
<'\cr  was  re(|uir(  d  to  prevent   injuries  from   uiiavoidahle  de- 
lays was  to  l»e  done  l>y  the  owner  or  his  aii'cnt    in    chara'e. 
TIk'  couil    v,as   of    opinion    that    the  pi'ovision   for  niiload- 
iii;j.'  refer:'  ->  to  the  terminus  and  not  to  an  intermediate  sta- 
tion :  and  ii.a'    is  the  injury  was  caused  l)y  the  neglect  of  tlu; 
owner's  au'ci;.  to  unload  the  cattle  the  company  was  not  lia- 
ble. '     'I'lieiH'  is  an  odd  ('X])ressioii  of  judicial  opinion    in  a 
New    Ilanipshire    case,"'  where  it    is    said    by  Doi:,  fJ.,  that 
•'  seiidini:"  live  <'attle  or  allowinir  them  lo  be  sent  Ity   a   rail- 
I'oad  in  cars  loaded  in  the  usual  maimer,   is  not   an  exercise 
of  a  liijili  decree  of  care  for  the  safety  and   welfare  of  the; 
animals.      It   may  be,  liiiaiieially,  a  judii'ious   thin:;'  for  the 
owner  to  do.     Ills  prolits  may  exceed  his  losses,  but  then; 
is  a  decree  of  lu'trliireiice,  not  to  say  cruelty,  on  the  i)art  of 


iii<j 


ImliMiiapolis  Ac.  T{.  Co.  v.  AIIimi.  IU  IimI.  :?04  (ISfiO). 

I'ciiii  V.  Haftalo  !{.  Co..  Ill  N.  Y.  'JOI   (1!^7-Jj,  IVckliaiu,  J.,  di.ssciit- 

llixforil  V.  Smith.  .'.2  \.  II.  \):>:>  (1S72). 
1-i 


m  i 


178 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAKKIERS. 


CH.  VI. J 


the  owner  in  such  si  traiisai'tion,  agtiinst  which  tlie  ciirrier  is 
not  required  to  insure  him."  Tlie  learned  judjjje  had  lie 
not  overlooked  the  fact  might  have  added  that  killing  live 
eattle,  or  suffering  them  to  be  killed  for  food  in  the  usual 
manner,  is  "  not  an  exereise  of  a  high  degree  of  eare  foi- 
the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  animals." 

§  li^8.  Evidence  of  Xe^iliijence.  — Where  goods  never 
reaeh  their  destination  and  the  carrier  can  give  no  account 
(»f  them,  this  is  proof  of  negligence  ;•""'  so  Avhere  goods  are 
lost  or  injured  Nvhih^  in  the  custody  of  the  caiTier  under  a 
special  contract,  ami  lu^  gives  no  account  of  how  it  oc- 
curred, a  i)resumption  of  negligence  is  of  course.''^  'I'he 
fact  that  a  carrier  has  received  a  trunk  belonging  to  a  pas- 
senger aiul  has  not  delivered  it  to  him  nor  accounted  for  it 
at  the  end  of  the  voyage,  will  sustain  a  linding  that  the 
trunk  was  lost  hy  the  gross  negligeiu'e  of  the  carrier.''^' 
Where  a  receipt  given  by  a  car"ier  contained  the  words 
"valued  under  $1'>0,  unless  herein  otherwise  stated,"  it 
was  held  that  a  demand  for  tlu^  goods  at  the  point  of  desti- 
nation and  non-comi)liance  with  the  demand  by  the  carrier, 
without  explanation  or  apology,  was  y>/'/»y/f/ yWfvVM'vidence  of 
fraud  or  gross  negligence  ;  but  that  the  recovery  must  be 
reduced  to  $14!».J»!».^"  Under  a  bill  of  lading  which  ex- 
empts a  vessel  from  damage  caused  by  "  any  neglect  of  the 
pilot,  master  or  mariners,"  or  "  resulting  from  stowage  or 
contact  with  other  goods,  for  leakage,  l)reakage,  damage 
caused  by  heavy  weather,  or  pitching  or  rolling  of  the  ves- 
sel, or  defective  packages,"  or  "arising  through  insufli- 
ciency  of  sti'ength  of  packages,"  it  is  responsible  for  cargo 
not  delivered  and  not  accounted  for.''*' 


Ife; 


<'H,  VI.] 


NEOLUJKNCE. 


17i> 


The  want  of  Huitahle  vi'liiclcs  Is  iicgligenco  on  tlu'  part  of 
the  {'arrier ;'"  and  it  luis  also  boon  hold  that  the  faihire  of  a 
ralh-oad  company  to  provide  ears  with  the  safest  and  most 
improved  phitforms  will  amount  to  nejrligenee  on  its  part."'^ 
As  from  the  simple  fact  of  the  oeeurrenee  of  fire  no  infer- 
iMice  of  negligence  can  properly  be  drawn  f'^  the  fact  of 
the  bui-ning  of  a  ship,  and  the  fact  that  the  witnesses  can 
not  account  for  the  origin  of  the  tire,  do  not  in  point  of 
law  absolutely  establish  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  car- 
rier;  they  are  only  competent  to  found  an  inference  of 
want  of  care.'^  Where  a  railroad  comi)aiiy  agreed  to  trans- 
port a  van  partly  on  its  own  road  and  i)artly  on  the  roatl  of 
another  company,  and  the  van  proved  to  be  too  high  to  pass 
on  the  road  of  the  other  company,  whereby  there  was  some 
delay  occasioned,  it  was  held  that  the  contracting  company 
was  not  shown  to  have  been  guilty  of  negligence,  as  it  was  not 
shown  that  its  servants  knew  that  the  van  was  too  high  to 
pass  on  the  other  road."''  Under  an  agreement  with  a  railroad 
company  for  the  carriage  of  goods  exempting  the  company 
from  liabilitv  for  anv  loss  or  damage  not  caused  by  its  neir- 
ligence  or  that  of  its  servants,  it  is  not  sufKcient  proof  of 
negligences  to  show  that  certain  cars  belonging  to  the  com- 
pany became  detached  from  each  other,  without  showing  tins 
cause  of  the  occurrence."''  In  an  English  case  a  cow  was 
put  into  a  truck  belonging  to  the  defendant,  and  on  arriv- 
ing at  the  place  of  destination  was  brought  to  a  siding  by  de- 
fendant's yard  for  the  purpose  of  being  unloaded.  The  por- 
ter in  charge  of  the  yard,  though  warned  riot  to  do  so  by 
the  plaintiff,  unfastened  the  truck  and  let  her  out,  and  she 
was   killed  '>v  a  i-ar.     The  plaintiff  had  signed  a  contract 


"'  SajitT  V.  PortsiMoiilliA:.'.  K.  Co.  :!1  Me.  228  (ISoO). 

•K-' Uoskowitz  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  5  Cent.  L.  .F.  .18  (1S77);  IJosko- 
witz  V.  Adams  Hxprcss  Co.  !»  Cent.  L.  J.  ;58!)  (lS7!t). 

'■''  'l'li()iiii)S()ii's  Lcadiiiii  Cases  on  Nc^lifjeiu'i'.  p.  148. 

«  Cochran  V.  Diiismoro.  Ill  N.  Y.  21!)  (1872). 

*'•  Wchb  V.  Jtailway  Co.,  2(;  \V.  K.  70  (1877). 

'W  Kivncli  V.  Buffalo  &o.  U.  Co.,  J  Koyos  108,2  Ab»).  App.  IX'c.  !!)« 
(18G8). 


'! 


.;i 


i  ■• 


m 


i  J 


\ 

^.'' 


tv. 


ISO  TIIK  rOXTIJACTS  or  CAHIilKKS.  [c'FI.   VI. 

tijjfroc'iiig  tliiit  the  (Icf'ciulaiil  sliould  iu»(  l)o  linblc  for  :my  loss 
or  injiirv  to  llic  cow  in  lln>  (h^livcrv,  if  such  tlimi!ii>"c  slioiild 
\w  occMsioiicd  l)v  I'cickinii'.  ])limitiiiu'  or  roslivciicss.  'I'lic 
Court    of  (Jiiccn's    Iiciicli    held  the  dcfciidiiiit    liahlc,'''      In 


Frini/i'  r.  AdaiHs  I'Jxprcsx  Cohipani/,*''*  n  carrier,  who  hy 
th(-  lerins  of  his  contract  to  caii'v  a  draft  was  relieved  from 
lial>ility  as  an  insurer,  was  held  to  have  used  jji-opei-  dili- 
gence and  foresi(.-lii  in  ])ljicin<i"  the  draft    in  a  safe  while  car- 


■■  1 ,-  ■•■■' 

rvinu'  it  upon  a  steainhoat.  altliouuii  upon  openiiiir  the  saf«', 
after  a  (ii'c  which  had  (h^stroyed  the  boat,  the  contents  of 
the  safe  were  found  to  l)e  in  ashes. 

^\'here  a  carrier  is  sued  for  not  delivering  goods  in  proper 
condition  under  a  bill  of  lading  containing  the  clause  "  not 
accountable  for  rust  or  breaUage,"  evidonce  that  similar 
goods  carried  to  th(>  same  place  usually  arrived  safe  and 
uninjured  is  admissi!)le  to  show  negligence  fui  his  pari,  and 
I'o  cfiin'i'rso,  the  fact  that  such  goods  usually  arrived  in  a 
damaged  and  broken  condition  is  admissible,  as  tending  to 
show  that  the  1)reakage  was  not  the  result  of  negligence  on 
his  i)art."'' 

•••  (;ill  v.  MnnclKvlcr  iS:c.  It.  Co.,  L.  K.  8  Q.  Ji.  180  (187;}). 

'■•^  IS  Lii.  Ann.  270  (18(i()). 

'■'  Steele  V.  'I'owMsend,  :$7  Ala.  'IM   HSfil). 


(11.   VII. J 


UKVIATION,   IJELAY,   KTC. 


181 


MAr.lI.llV   NOTWITIISIANDINC  CONTKACT DKVIATION, 

UKLAY,  KTC. 


Slf'S 

m 


CHAPTER  VII. 


m4 


^'m 


i;tll.  Kffcci  of  Dcviiilioii  FniiM  Terms  of  C'oiitnu't. 

Mil.  Contract  to  forward  by  Particular  Vessel. 

I'll.  Kxceplions  in  Contract  Lost  by  Deviation. 

1  |-J.  Deviation  hy  Connectinf;  (.'arfier. 

Ml?,  (.'oiisent  of  Shipper. 

14).  railiii-e  to  Obey  l{e^iilations. 

Il.'i.  Liability  for  I^oss  Caused  by  Delay. 

MCi.  Contracts  Concerning;  Delay  Construed. 

147.  Contracts  to  Deliver  in  Specilled  Time  —  Penalty. 

MS.  Abamlonment  of  (Nmtract  —  Malfeasance. 


§  13!>.  hy<'r/  of  Deviation  Froiu  Tenns  of  (Jontvad. — 
As  was  scfii  in  tho  introductorv  fhtiptcr.  if  u  farrici-  dcviato 
from  his  i-oiilc  witliout  lU'i'cssi.y  or  irasoiial)li'  causo  and  a 
l(»ss  ensue,  wliieh  iiad  he  not  ile[)arled  from  iiis  course  he 
would  not  hav(^  been  responsihU'  for,  lie  will  nevertheless  l)e 
l„,ijii(l — his  wronirfiil  act  heinji'  eoiisideri'd  as  the  iiroximtite 
eause  of  the  disaster.'  This  is  an  elementary  ride  i>(>vern- 
iiii^  the  liid)ilities  of  common  carriers  independent  of  eon- 
tract.  Uiit  it  is  likewise  well  settled  that  by  deviiitinji"  from 
the  manner  of  the  carriajxe  the  carrier  loses  tlu'  heiietit  of 
any  <'x<^'niplion  in  his  contract,-'  as  when-  he  a<:fees  to  ship 

'  AiiU  .  Cap.  I.  §  10. 

■■'  Ma>;li.c  v.  Camden  »\:c.  |{.  Co..  4.')  N.  Y.  .")14  (iNTl    . 


:!! 


H 


\    \ 


r^ 


J'  \ 


t. 


A 


CwHJ 


II 


ffiS" 

K' '' 

|i 

t^ 

1S2 


THK  CONTUACTS  OF  CAIMMKIIS. 


[CH.  VII. 


1)V  a  sailiiii>"  vessel  and  slii|)s  liy  steam,'  or  where  he  ajjrees 
to  carry  the  <>()()(ls  "  all  rail  "  and  takes  them  l)_v  s»'a  or  in 
any  other  mode  even  for  a  few  miles. ^  The  rule  is  that  if 
he  attempt  to  pei-form  his  contract  in  a  manner  different 
from  his  undertakinii',  he  hecomes  an  insiirer  for  the  a))so- 
lute  delivery  of  the  iroods  and  can  not  avail  himself  of  any 
exceptions  made  in  his  heliaif  in  the  conli-act.'' 

§  140.  (Jontvdct  to  Fonrfinl  hi/  I'dr/icii/dr  |Vn,sW. —  In 
the  ii.*sonce  of  evidence  of  a  general  custom  controllinf; 
bills  of  ladin<?  in  respect  to  the  style  and  manner  of  ship- 
ment, it  must  he  assumeil  tiiat  if  the  name  of  a  vessel  is 
inserted  in  the  bill,  it  is  because  the  owner  desiirnates  her 
jis  the  proper  one  to  take  the  ji(>ods,  havinir  repird  to  the 
voyage  and  time  of  sailing:  and  the  party  issuing  the  bill 
can  not  send  the  goods  by  a  vessel  other  than  that  nanx'd 
therein  without  assun)ing  the  whole  risk  of  loss  oi'  damage 
to  the  goods  while  )n  such  vessel.''  The  case  of  liarJii  r, 
/Sfraiii.s/tij)  CoDijKiiii/,'  which  is  an  authority  on  this  ])oint, 
was  sonunvhat  jx'culiar  in  its  facts.  In  this  case  the  defend- 
ants' agent  at  Havre  issued  a  bill  of  lading  containing  tin' 
following  clause:  "Received  in  and  upon  the  steamship 
called  Shamrock,  now  lying  in  the  port  of  Havre  and  bound 
for  Liverpool,  eighteen  cases  of  merchandisi'  to  be  tran- 
shijjped  at  Liverpool  on  boai'd  the  Liveri>ool  and  I'hil- 
adelphia    steamship.  City    of    Manchester,  or   otlu'r    sleam- 


■'  Merrick  v.  Wclisicr.  :i  Midi.  'MS  (1.s.->-lj. 

Mliifjht'o  V.  Ciimdt'ii  Ac.  H.  Co..  4.">  \.  Y.  T>\A  (1S71):  Bostwielx  v. 
«!iltiiii(m'  &C.  H.  r<).,  !.->  X.  Y.  71:2  (1S71). 

■'' Diiiiseth  V.  Wilde.  :{  III. 'iS.')  (IS-IO).  ••  Tlie  slvili  iind  eN|ienenee  of 
tlie  master  o'  tlie  boat,  tlie  ehuracter  of  the  erew  and  iiie  siaiiiicliiies.-* 
iUid  six'ed  of  the  l)o!it.  may  all  l)e  tak<Mi  into  coiisideratioii  liy  the  owner 
or  shipper  of  <joods  in  seleetinji;  a  boat  for  the  ean-ia;;e  of  his  ;j;oods. 
Havin<j  done  so.  lu>  ha>  a  ri;xht  to  retinire  that  the  eonlraci  be  fnltilled  in 
the  manner  ajrreed.  nnless  the  master  of  the  boat  reserves  the  privileife 
of  re-sliipi)in,ij;."  Diinsetli  v.  Wade  .siijira.  See  furlhei' /<'<>'.  ("ap.  VIII, 
••Privile<>e  of  Ke-Shipiiinji." 

"  (Joddard  v.  Mallory..VJ  Uarb.  S7  (1S(!S). 

':;  Wall.  Jr.  -J-JO  (ls.-)7). 


CII.   Ml. 


I)K\  lATlON,   DKI.AV.   KIC 


\HH 


ship  appointed  t(»  suil  for  IMiiliidflphia  on  Wednesday 
the  sixth  day  of  Scpteinhcr,  and  failinjr  sliipnient  l>y 
her,  then  l>y  the  first  steamship  sailinir  after  that  date  for 
J'liiladelphia."  The  hill  of  ladini:'  exee|)ted  loss  1)y  *'  ueei- 
<h'nts  of  the  seas."  Anotlier  of  the  defendant's  sttfain- 
ships.  the  City  of  Philadelpliia,  was  to  sail  from  Liverpool 
to  IMiiladelphia  on  the  .ioih  of  Aiiirust,  and  it  happened 
that  the  eases  of  mei'chandise  nnexpeeledly  arrived  .'it  the 
foi'iner  port  before  tiiat  day,  iind  therefore  the  <lefendant 
shipped  a  portion  of  the  eases  oii  the  City  of  IMiiladelphia, 
reserviiiir  the  remainder  for  the  City  of  Manchester.  The 
jjfoods  sent  by  the  latter  steamship  ai'i'ivetl  at  IMiiladelphia 
in  due  season  and  in  <:ood  order,  l>ut  those  sent  hy  tin;  for- 
mer were,  on  account  of  the  wreck  of  the  City  of  IMiiladi'l- 
])hia,  lost.  In  an  action  to  recover  the  value  of  the  <roods 
lost  the  defendants  contended  that  they  were  not  hound  to 
<letain  "oods  in  order  to  aw. lit  the  sailinir  of  a  pi'rlicular 
vessel,  and  they  also  endeavored  to  esljil)lisli  a  usa<>"e  amonn' 
steamship  coni])anies  to  ship  uoods  as  soon  as  possible  after 
their  receipt .  Hut  the  defendants  were  Ik  Id  liable.  Mr. 
«lustice  (iiMKK,  by  whom  the  ciise  was  decided,  was  of  opin- 
ion that  it  was  not  necessary  that  tlu'  plaintiff  should  show  a 
n'asou  why  he  had  mentioned  the  particular  vessel.  Ueason 
or  no  reason  he  had  a  riii'ht  to  have  his  contract  fulfilled  ac- 
cordinjjf  to  its  stipulations,  jiiid  the  result  showed  tli.at  if  it 
had  l»eeii  so  performed  the  n'oods  would  have  arrived  safely. 
If  the  iroods  had  bi'cii  sent  by  the  City  of  Manchester  the 
plaintiff  would  have  been  obli<red  to  bear  the  risks  excei)ted 
by  the  bill  of  ladinu'.  liut  the  <'arrier,  by  chanjxinjr  the  ves- 
sel and  lime,  had  substituted  different  risks  from  those  stip- 
ulated for  by  the  parties.  The  plaintiff's  loss  was  the  le- 
sult  of  the  defendants'  breach  (tf  contract. 

§  141.  /'Jxcrjif ions  ill  ('oiifnir/  Losf  fti/  /Ji'riafioii. — Wlii're 
a  I)ill  of  ladini:'  contains  an  exception  of  "  dan<j:ers  of  the 
sea,"  the  b(Miefit  of  the  exception  will  be  lost  by  a  deviation 
from  the  usual  route  by  the  vessel  irivinj;  the  bill  of  ladini^, 
unless   the   deviation  is    made  throuirh  reasonable  neeessitv 


H 


ii 


1H4 


TIIK  roNTKACTS  ol"  CM!!!!  Kits.  [cil.  VII. 


"':■   i 


which  is  ii  i|ii('s|i(ni  of  law  t<t  l»t'  (Iccidcd  l»y  the  ••omt.'*  In 
a  case  in  Pcimsylvania  a  cari-icr  h:iii  a  foiilratl  tn  carrv 
jr<»()(|s  to  their  (Icstiiialioii  "  ria  1  lie  ( 'licsa|»t'!ikt'  and  Hchi- 
waiv  Canal."  On  arrivini:'  Mt  tlic  cannl  he  wns  told  that  the 
locks  were  out  of  onh'f.  and  tliat  he  could  not  pass,  upon 
which  he  nndei'took  to  no  ai'ound  l)y  sea,  liut  when  on  the 
sea  his  hoat  was  sunk  hy  a  iialc.  and  il  and  ihe  iroods 
were  lost.  The  Itill  of  lading:'  contained  an  «'Xceplion  of 
'*  the  danp'Vs  id"  naviuation."  It  was  held  that  the  eai'iier 
was  lialile,  as  the  exception  was  only  inlen(h'(|  to  a|iply  to 
th«'  voyajic  on  the  canal,  from  whi'ii  the  \('>>el  had  de- 
viated." So  if  a  cai'rier  undertake  to  deliver  i;dods  the 
*' daiiii'ers  of  the  river  e\cepl«'d,"  wilii  pi-ivilep"  of  ic- 
shipi)inji"  at  a  particular  point,  and  he  stop  short  of  that 
point  ami  the  yoods  he  there  lost  in  a  >torm,  he  will  li«'  re- 
sptmsihle.'"  Where  ooods  were  deliveiu'il  to  a  carrier  at 
Worcester,  Mass.,  to  lie  taken  to  .Muscatine.  Iowa,  the  hill 
of  ladinu',  which  excepted  liahility  from  loss  from  lii-e, 
containine'  the  followinu'  In-adinu',  **  .Merchants  Despatch 
Transportiition  Company.  Fast  Kr«'i^ht  Line  fi'oni  Boston, 
Alhaiiy  and  all  New  Knjilaiid  I'oints  to  the  West,  Northwest 
and  Southeast,  f/tronif/i  n'if/tnnf  tnnisfir  in  cai's  (»wned  and 
eontrollecl  In*  the?  company,""  and  the  j^oods  on  their  arrival 
at  Chioajfo  were  transferred  to  a  wai'ehouse,  where  the  same 
eveninjr  th<'y  were  hurned  in  the  <;i'eat  tins  it  was  held  that 
the  carrier  could  not  avail  itself  of  the  exemption." 

§  142.  iJi'i'ltitioti  hi/  ( 'i)intf'c/hii/  ('(irn'f'r. — A  contract  by 
the  first  of  several  carriers  on  a  route  to  forward  jzoods  l»y 
railroad  in  liood  ord(M",  to  the  terminus  of  the  whole  route, 
at  a  stipulatetl  pi'ice,  is  an  entirety.  If  at  the  end  of  his 
own   line,  he   changes   their  route  by  deliverinii'   them  to  a 

M;r(>sl)y  V.  l''il.li.  IJCunii.  lilt  (IMtS);  Ki^d  v.  Spiiiililiii.i!;. ."i  Hosw.  :{!t.'i 
(IS.V,)).  iilllrmed  :t(l  N.  Y.  (i:{0  (ISIU). 

'■'  lliiiul  v.  IJayiifs.  1  Wli.ut  201  (Is:iS). 

''  Ciissiliiy  V.  Vuiiliu,-.  t  1$.  Moil.  I'd.")  (Isi:?). 

"  Sti'Wiirt  V.  MiTchaiiis  Dispalcli  Trail-.  Co..  17  Iowa.  22!)  (1S77) : 
Itotiiiisoii  V.  Mcrcliaiits  Dispjiti'li  'riaiH.  <'o..  |.")I(>\\;i.  170  (IS77). 


j  J'V 

:        -\ 

ni.  VII.] 


DKVIATION,   DKLAV,   KTC. 


1M5 


second  c.'in'ifr  In  iro  liy  stc:iiul»oiil ,  lie  assiinii's  |ln'  risk  of 
Iraiispoilatioii  and  is  iJMldf  for  any  loss  or  dania,i;((  in  the 
.sul)sc(|U(<nt  transit,  not \vitlistandiii}^°  a  stipulation  that  he 
nliail  not  l»i'  I'cspoiisildc  for  any  dania;^('  if  rcccivi-d  in  jjjood 
order  at  the  end  of  liis  own  lin«'.'-  Wliere  an  expi'ess  com- 
pany iiav(>  aureed  to  forward  ;.roods  l»y  a  pai'ticidar  vessel, 
and  that  vessel  does  not  i;-o,tln'y  have  no  i'i<>ht  to  forward 
the  li'oods  hy  any  other  usual  and  proper  mode  of  eonvey- 
an('(  It  is  their  duty  to  notify  the  owners  and  await  their 
instructions."  \\\  philnisnn  r.  Xi'ir  Yorit  Ci'iilrtil  Ji'di/rodd 
CoitijKini/,  plaintiffs  sent  l»y  the  defendants  to  Albany, 
ifoods  consiiiiied  to  a  person  in  New  \'ork,  with  directi.)ns 
to  defendants  to  foi'ward  from  All)any.  Appeiuhid  to  the 
freiidit  way-iiill  was  a  memorandum  *'■  rt<f  I'eoplc's  Line" 
of  steamlio.ats.  On  arrival  at  Albany  the  People's  Line  re- 
fused to  take  the  freinht.  In  tln'  Supreme  Court  it  was 
held  that  defendants  thereby  became  warehousem  n  and 
forwarders,  and  navi^iiition  l>einji'  iibout  to  close,  t'  "j  f>iily 
<lischar<ife(l  their  duty  by  ship[)inii:  hy  another  line,  which 
was  responsible  and  in  <;;oo(I  rei)ulati()n,  and  were  not  liable 
for  a  loss  of  the  <;o(k1s  on  the  passaii'c  to  New  York  by  the 
perils  of  naviiration."  On  ai>peal  to  the  Court  of  Api)iNils 
this  rulin<>;  was  reversed.  "  The  defendant"  said  that 
court,  "  was  clearly  liable.  On  the  refusal  of  the  steamboat 
proprii'tors  to  receive  the  iiroix'rty,  the  company  should 
either  have  communicated  the  fact  to  the  })Iaintiff  and 
awaited  further  instructions,  or  it  should  have  relieved  itself 
from  liability  by  depositing  the  hemp  for  safe  keeping  in  a 
suitable  warehouse."  '"' 

§  1  43.  Coiisfuif  of  >S/tfj)j)«'r. —  It  would  of  course  be  dif- 
ferent if  till'  consent  of  the  customer  w<!re  obtained  to  the 
alteration  in  the  manner  of  the  performance.  Thus  in  a 
Ijouisiana  cast!  a  shipjter  of  goods  took  a  bill  of  lading  from 


4' 


'-  I'^itmaii  V.  Ciiiciiiiiiiti  iicc.  |{.  ('(>..:»  Disney.  248  (1S.")S). 
i'(i<).)(lik-li  V.  'niompsciii.  I  lioh.  7.\0S(j(;),  H  N.  Y.  All  (tS71). 
n:tl  Barlt.  I'.ii;  (IS.-)?). 
'■'.I..I111S..11  V.  Ni'w  Yiirk  Criitral    1{.  Co..  ;!;i  \.  Y.  (ilO  (lS(ir>). 


ISC, 


TIIK  COXTKArTS  OF  CAItlMKIlS. 


[Cir.   VII. 


i^H 


(»iif  \('s>r|,  hut  (•(nis('nt<'(l  tdlln'  sciidinji'  of  lii.t  ;;«t(><ls  liy  aii- 
oIIht  of  til*' siimc  lint'.  The  jroods  hcinjr  t'itptiin'd  and  dc- 
strovi'fl  l>v  a  hostile  cniixcr  wliiU-  on  tlic  voyairc  it  was  held 
that  the  «>\vn<'r.'<  of  the  linr  were  no!  liaMc  for  the  loss.''' 
In  an  earlier  ease  in  New  llanipsliire,'"  A  airreed  to  ti'ans- 
port  salt  for  \\  in  a  lioat,  It  tellini:'  liiin  that  he  nuist  carry 
the  salt  as  far  as  he  could  liy  water  and  then  land  it  in  the 
nio>l  convenient  place.  A  carrie(|  the  salt  as  far  as  II, 
where  tindinj.'  that  the  river  was  frozen  he  landed  it,  leavinir 
it  in  the  care  ()f  two  hoatnien,  and  sendinj;  word  to  li  where 
the  salt  wa- .  The  next  niufht  the  I'iver  was  so  ohstriicted 
with  ici'  that  the  current  clianjrcd  and  a  part  of  the  salt  wa> 
swept  away  an<l  l(»>t.  The  court  held  the  carrier  liable,  on 
the  i:n»iind  that  B  ha<l  not  accepted  the  salt  win'i'e  it  was 
landed. — The  authority  of  this  easels  somewhat  douhlful. 
It  mi_Ldit  have  heen  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  keep  the  salt 
on  the  Itoat  :  hut  the  «leci>ion  is  not  based  on  that  i^round, 
but  >olely  on  the  L'roiind  of  non-acceptance,  the  court  say- 
inir  tliiit  tin-  airrcenient  of  H  to  accept  the  salt  was  not  tant- 
amount to  an  ai'tual  acc«'ptance. 

^  141.  Fm'/urf  fn  Ohi'i/  Ji'i'(/ii/ii/!itiis. —  Where  by  contract 
with  a  carrier  on  :i  canal  the  j^oods  were  to  be  (h'livered 
within  a  certain  time  in  L'ood  order,  "  the  dani-crs  of  tlu' 
naviiration.  from  leakaire  and  all  other  unavoidable  acci- 
dents excepted,"  it  w:is  held  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
carrier  to  proceed  accordinir  to  public  re;.rnlations,  and  that 
he  was  liable  f()r  a  loss  arisinir  from  the  bilirinjj;  of  his  boat 
while  lyinjr  for  the  nijrht  on  a  lock,  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
the  canal,  althoULrh  there  was  evidence  of  frequent  user  of 
locks  for  such  a  purpose. '"* 

'!;  14">.  LiahHltif  for  Loxs  (.'(iKsi'il  1)1/  Ih'Uiij. —  In  the  ab- 
sence of  special  contract,  the  decisions  are  eonilictini^  as  to 
the  liability  of  the  can-ier  for  a  loss  by  the  act  of  (iod  oc- 


''■  lli-ii.lri.-k-  v.  Tin-  MMriiin;r  Stiir.  1ST,m.  Ami.  :'>:.;{  (ISdd). 
'■  llam>  V.  l{:ii«l.  I  \.  H.  2.V.I  ( ISJ7). 

I' Al\v..;)il  V    Ki-li;iii(-.- Trail-.  «'(..!»  \yalH.  S7  (l><:iil)-  iii'il  -<■■'  Hiiml    v. 
B:i\  lie-.  I  Whai-t.  201  (ls:JS). 


to  that  p.Mi't  (»f  tilt'  road  wlici'i'  the  tfaiii  would  have  Ik'cii 
if  it  liad  Ix'cii  niiiiiin<r  on  time  It  was  held  that  the  iic^jli- 
irciicc  of  Ihf  <'oiii|»aiiy  in  nimiiiiir  hchind  time  was  not  the 
Id'oxinialc  cansc  (d"  the  injury,  Init  the  court  said  that,  if  it 
had  Ix'rn  tin-  case  (d'  a  conunon  caiTici'  of  ^(»ods  the  ruU' 
w<»nld  have  iM'cn  diffncnl .  It  is  nt'vci'lhclcss  w(dl  srilhid 
in  several  States  that  sn<'li  ne^'liu'eiKc  is  not  the  pfoxiniatc 
eause  of  the  lo>s  and  that  tin-  eai-riei'  is  tln-i'efore  n(»t  lia- 
ble.'•'  In  the  ease  of  an  ex|ires-  contract  a  similar  discordanev 
♦  xists.  in  New  \'orh  where  a  Itill  of  ladin<;  exempted  the 
«'arrier  from  i-es|»on>iliilily  f(»r  loss  hy  fire,  and  he  delayed 
foi'  an  uni'easoiialiie  Icnirlh  of  time  to  deliver  the  jioods  t() 
ii  connectinir  line,  and  the  i:«io(U  wei-e  hurnt  in  the  ware- 
house «d"  the  former,  it  wa>  held  that  the  exemption  in  the 
hill  of  ladiiiii'  did  n(»t  al»-<olve  the  carrier  from  liahility  for 
the  loss."  Oh  tiie  other  hand  in  llimilhi/  r.  Xiir//tfni  TrauH- 
jxirfdfioii  ( 'iiiii/t'Hii/.-'  the  plaintiff  delivered  to  a  cai'ricr 
pxxis  to  l»e  forwarded,  and  r«'cei\cd  a  hill  of  ladini;  ex- 
♦•niptinir  the  carrier  from  all  lialt'.lity  for  loss  or  damajre  by 
tire  while  in  transit .  or  while  in  depots  or  wai'chouses  oi- 
places  (d'  transliipuient .  and  providini:'  that  it  should  ix* 
<"onclusivc  evidence  of  a-i^^ent  to  its  t«'rms.  'i'iie  carrier 
netrlijrently  di-layed  to  forward  the  iroods.  and  they  were 
Iturnt  at  the  place  of  delivery  in  its  custody.  'I'he  court 
held  that  the  carrier  wa^  not  lial)Ie  for  the  htss.  The  court 
said:  "  It  is  plain  that  the  destiMietiou  <d'  jrood?* '»y  tiro  in 
the  calamity  which  happeiii'd  c(»uld  not  reasoiiahly  he  antici- 
pated as  a  conse(|uence  cd'  the   wron^ifid   detention  of  them 

'■'  .1"/'.  (':l|t.    I.   ;<    III. 

•''  McCiaryv.  Si(>ii\  <ii.\  \c.  15.  «'....  :!  X.-h.  H  (is;:;). 

•-'  Aiiii\  Cnp.  !..(;  10. 

-  I{;i\vs(tn  V.  llollaii.l.  :)i)  \.  V.  ill  I  (is;,",). 

-'  IIT)  Mii-i^.  ;!i)l   (IS7H. 


'mmmmi* 


Qi^.. 


188 


THE  CONTRACTS  OK  CAKKJKKS. 


[(nr.  VM. 


•  ''.'^! 


on  llic  wharf.  The  tit-lay  did  not  destroy  llu'  property,  and 
there  was  no  connection  between  the  (ire  and  tlie  detention." 
§  14().  VontritctK  (JoiK-cniin;/  DHai/  Cotis/riiciL — A  de- 
lay not  exphnned  will  not  he  taken  to  l>e  *' unavoidahle  " 
where  the  hill  of  ladinu"  ext'cjits  ••  unavoidal)le  delay.""  A 
transj)ortatJon  coni[)any  ivci-ived  uoods  in  New  \'ork  on  the 
10th  of  Novendx'i',  which  they  ai>i-eed  to  dclixcr  in  iJacine, 
the  owner  assuniiiiiT  the  ."isk  of  lo-s  hy  lake  naviuation  and 
daina<j:e  hy  nnavoidahle  or  accidei'tal  delay,  and  the  i^oods 
did  not  j-each  Buffalo  until  tln^  22d  or  21U[  and  w(>re  lost  on 
the  lake  a  few  hours  after  leavin;:"  l»uftalo,  hy  wreck.  The 
court  held  that  the  delay  in  transpcntiu;',' t he  noods  to  IJuf- 
falo,  tlu!  usual  time  for  the  transit  lieini:"  oidy  thi'ec  days, 
was,  in  View  of  increased  daniirer  of  lake  ii;i\  ligation  as  win- 
ter ap[)roached,  prhmi  farU'  ])r<iof  of  nei>Tiu('n<e,  and  <"jisi, 
upon  the  company  tin*  burden  (d'  >howinu'  that  the  delay 
\vas  f:urly  within  the  exception  of  tlie  contract.-'  In  the 
common  stipulation  on  railioad  tickets  thai  the  company 
shall  not  Ih;  liable  for  any  delay  in  the  start ini:'  or  arrival  cd" 
trains,  arisinj;  from  accident  or  other  cause,  the  wiu'ds 
"other  cause"  me'i:\  ••  other  cause  in  tin-  nature  of  ;ic<i- 
dent,  anil  not  "any  cause  whatever.""-'  An  iijreenient 
as  to  live  sto(>k  exceptinu'  *•  risk  of  any  loss  or  damau^e 
whiel,  ma}'  Ix^  sustained  l)y  reason  of  any  delay,  or  from  any 
other  cause  or  thinji'  in  or  in«idi'nt  to.  oi-  from  or  in  the 
loadinji  or  unloadinir  the  stock."'  is  held  to  apply  to  losses 
from  delays  in  loadini:'  (U*  unloading  and  to  have  no  refer- 
ence to  other  losses  which  the  delays  of  the  .-ai-ricr  may 
cause  to  the  owner.-""  The  clause  in  a  receipt  that  tlie  car- 
rier shall  not  l)e  Iial)h'  foi' damaiic  or  lo><  to  the  Lioods  be- 
yond a  certain  amoimt  does  not  apply  in  a  ^uit  aijainst  a 
currier  for  dama<;«'s  for  delay  in  transport ini>'  the  ;^dods.-'' 

-'  I'":ilvi'y   v.  Nerihcrii  \i'.   Cn..  i:.  Wi-.  IJ'.i  i  |m;J). 
'■'■■  IJiickmii^lcr  V.  <;rt'at  lv!>li'i  i:  !.'.('.>..  J:!!..  I".  ^  \.  S.)   171  (jsro). 
•••"  SissuM  V.  <'|(.v.'l;iii(l\c.  K.  ('....  I!  Mich,  isii  (ls<;(j). 
'■'^  N'roiiiiiiiii  V.  Ani'Tii'iiii  iVc.   1-:n|iit~-  ('u..  .'iN.  Y.  (S.<'.;    I'l.  >■.  c..  J 
lliiii..">12  (V.7t). 


<ll.    V 


■..] 


l)i;\l.\Tl(>N,  DKI.AV,  i:t(". 


18!» 


<;■  117.  ('(tiilrarls  h)  Ih'Hi'ci'  III  Sjucijicil  Thnf — Pcnnllij. 
— Ill  lilt'  sliidiliitioii  oi"  !i  l)ill  ol"  liidinu'  lo  (Idivcr  floods 
williin  :i  sijcciliod  lime.  "  in  i^ood  (irdcr,  the  diiiiLicrs  of  the 
r;iiii'<>;id,  life  :md  other  mi;ivoid:il>le  jicc'hU'hIs  excepteti," 
the  e.\<'ei)lioii  I'ehiles  exellisivel v  to  the  eoiidifioii  of  the 
u'od'ls,  jiiid  the  e;in'iei'  is  not  excused  from  his  ohliu-.-itioii  to 
deliver  within  tlie  time  by  showim:'  tiiut  the  ehiy  was  eaiised 
li\  iiii:',voidMl)le  aeeideiil .'-'"  Whel'e  (he  eoiilrael  sjteeilies  tlie 
time  and  tixes  the  rate  of  dt'iiia-ics  for  delay,  swh  damaLi'es 
ai'e  not  the  whole  extent  of  lial)ility  wliere  there  is  injury 
hv  I'eason  of  delay.  'IMiiis  in  I'hiri'  r .  Cnln)!  l^^xprcss  (U))n- 
jiaini,'^  expi'essnieii.  who  were  common  I'arriers,  stipulated 
to  |);i.v  a  certain  sum  per  tHim  for  delay  in  delivery  of  fruit 
heyoiid  a  time  speciiied,  exempt  inij  llu'niselves  fn)in  liability 
for  casualties  beyond  their  control,  and  for  injui'y  to  the 
rrcii'lit  duriuL''  the  course  of  transjxo'tation  occasioned  by 
tile  weathei',  accidental  delays  or  by  nalui'al  tendency  to  de- 
c:r.  .  and  providini:' that  t heii*  "iruaranly  of  special  dispatch" 
.-hoiild  not  covi'r  exti'aordinary  cases:  there  was  such  delay, 
aii<i  till'  Li'oods,  which  were  perishable,  were  ji'rcatly  injured. 
It  was  held  that  the  expi'essmen  were  liable  for  the  injui'V 
to  the  fruit  u'rowini:'  out  of  the  ncjjlecl,  as  the  stipulation 
did  not  limit  the  liability,  but  was  intended  to  :i))ply  when; 
the  itroperiy  was  dcli\«'red  uninjured,  but  after  the  conti'ai't 
lime.  All  aLii-eemeiit  to  transport  <j.-oods  and  deliver  them, 
with  a  ]irovisioii  that  the  carrier  shall  pay  a  fixed  sum  for 
each  (lav's  delay  after  the  lime  specitied  for  the  delivery,  is 
an  uncomlitional  ajjfreemeni  to  deliver  the  uoods,  and  is  not 
an  aiireemenl  to  deliver  or  pay  the  sum   specilied.'"     Where 


i.-,s 


'•ws 


i  .1 
I      t 


•Mhiriiiniiy  v.  Uiinrliiim.  I  Uiht.  •Jiili  (Is.-)!).  iUlirmcd  \1  N.  Y.  !)!» 
(isril).  In  liiis  ciisi' tln' l)ill  of  lailiiiu' ;!<'Kiin\\  IcilLTcd  the  rccciiit,  in  jjood 
ordci'.  Ill'  llii'  i(ro|)<'rly.  willi  a  |ii'niiii«i'  to  deliver  in  li];e  "jood  order, 
'•diiui:iiii'>  <if  liie  rMJ'road,  lire,  lealiiiije  ami  all  niiavoidalile  accidents," 
eMcjiied.  'I'iie  wiillen  contract,  luirsnant  to  wliieli  tlie  jxoods  were  sent 
and  ilii'  reeeijit  ^iven.  piovidetl  that  tlie  carrier  f-lioiild  d(diver  them 
w  iiiiiii  a  eei'tain  time. 

■-•••:  Hill,  ill  (IS.-)Si 

■■   A  c.inier  a;j;ri'ed  to  ii^an^porl  ^oods  from  New  York  to  Missouri  in  :i 


190 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAUBIEKS. 


[CH.  Til. 


■     ^i 


I  il 


a  carrier  stipuhited  against  liability  for  detentions  beyond 
his  control,  the  evidence  showed  an  inability  in  si  railroad 
employed  by  him  to  deliver  freight  as  fast  as  it  was  re- 
ceived, which  inability  was  not  of  sudden  development  or 
temporary  duration,  and  was  known  to  tin;  carrier.  It  was 
held  that  in  such  a  contract,  made  with  knowledge;  of  these 
facts,  to  deliver  witliin  a  certain  time,  the  delay  so  occas- 
ioned was  not  excused.'" 

§  148.  AbanilonnK'nt  of  Contract  —  Malffusauce. —  The 
carrier  is  likewise  made  liable  for  the  goods  intrusted  to  his 
care,  and  prevented  from  availing  himself  of  the  exceptions 
in  his  contract,  by  a  failure  to  carry  it  out  in  accordance  with 
its  terms,  or  by  attem{)ting  to  perform  it  against  the  wislics 
and  orders  of  the  bailor.  This  princii)le  is  illustrated  by 
but  few  reported  cases.  In  an  early  English  case  the  owners 
of  vessels  on  a  line  between  A  and  C,  had  given  public 
notice  that  they  would  not  l)e  answoral)le  for  losses  in  any 
case,  except  the  loss  was  occasioned  by  want  of  care  in 
the  master,  nor  even  in  such  case  lu'yond  ten  per  cent,  of 
the  value  of  the  goods  shipped,  unless  <!xtra  freight  was 
paid.  The  master  took  on  l)()ard  goods  to  be  carried  from 
A  to  li,  an  intermediate  place  between  A  and  C,  to  be  d<!liv- 
cred  at  B.  The  vessel  passed  by  H  without  delivering  the 
goods  there,  and  sunk  before  her  arrival  at  (',  without  any 
want  of  care  in  tluMuaster.  It  was  held  that  the  <)wn«'r  of 
the  vessel  was  responsible  to  the  shippiir  of  tlu^  goods  for 
the  whole  l()ss,'*'*  In  a  later  case  a  railroad  company  having 
carried  goods  from  one  of  its  stations  to  another,  the  sta- 
tion master  at  the  placi"  to  which  they  were  earried,  without 
making  inijuiries  of  the  consignor,  after  delay  of  a  week, 

ccrtiiii)  nmnhi'r  of  cliiys,  or  to  dt'duct  for  <'ii(li  tlay's  ilt-lay  ii  ccrt.-iiii 
ainoiiiit  from  the  fn-ij^iit  iiioncy.  'I'li('.>;('  were  held  not  allcniiitivc  :iy;rco- 
tnciits,  liiit  that  tlif  aiiioiiiit  to  Ix-  ilcdiictcd  wus  in  tlio  iiiitiirc  of  liipii- 
dati'il  diiinufics,  iuid  tin-  (Mrricr  was  l)oiind  to  pay  for  a  dcday  ocrasioriiMl 
by  aa  injury  to  a  canal  by  a  frcslict.  Harmony  v.  IJin:;ham,  I  Diicr,  "20'.) 
(i.sr>4),  allinncil  12  N.  Y.  !)!)  (1851). 

3'  I'lacc!  V.  Union  Kxprciss  Co.,  2  Hilt.  10  (18:i8). 

«  Klli8  V.  TiirmT,  8  T.  K.  Wl  (1800). 


cir.  VII.] 


DEVIATION,  DELAY,  ETC. 


191 


(lelivorcd  the  jroods  to  h  person  of  a  iianie  very  similar  to 
that  of  the  person  named  as  the  eonsignee.  The  contraet 
of  carriage  was  at  a  reduced  tariff,  conditioned  to  exclude 
all  lirhility  except  for  wilful  misconduct.  It  was  held  that 
the  delivery  of  the  goods  amounted  to  wilful  misconduct.'' 
So  in  a  case  in  our  own  courts  a  railroad  company  rer 
ceivcd  cjittle  to  he  transported  over  its  road  under  a 
special  contract,  in  which  it  was  stipulated  that  the  owners 
of  the  cattle  should  undertake  "  all  risk  of  loss,  injury, 
damage  and  other  contingencies  in  loading,  unloading,  con- 
vi'vance  and  otherwise,"  and  that  the  company  should 
neither  he  hound  "  t()  forward  the  cattle  hy  a  particular 
train,  nor  he  responsihle  for  their  delivery  within  any  cer- 
tain time."  On  the  arr'val  of  the  train  on  which  the  cattle 
were  heing  transported,  at  a  station  intermediate  hetween 
the  points  of  shipment  and  delivery,  the  cars  containing  the 
cattle  were  switched  off  on  a  side  track  hy  order  of  the 
freight  su[)erintendent  of  that  section  of  the  road,  and  de- 
t^iined  thiee  or  four  days.  During  this  detention  the  cattle 
were  neither  fed  nor  watered,  it  heing  impracticahle  to  sup- 
ply them  with  food  and  water  while  on  the  cars,  and  there 
being  no  facilities  for  unloading  them.  In  conse(|uence  of 
thi."  and  of  exposure  to  the  inclemency  of  the  weather  some 
of  I'le  cattle  died,  and  the  value  of  the  others  was  greatly 
depn  I'iated.  The  court  ruh.'tl  that  the  act  of  the  freight 
sui)erintendent  in  detaining  the  cattle  was  not  negligence, 
hut  a  deliherate  and  int«'ntional  hreach  of  the  contract,  and 
that  the  company  was  liiihle  in  damages  to  the  owner  of  the 
cattle.''  In  another  case  a  clause  in  a  hill  of  lading  pro- 
vided that  "  tln^  <>()()ds  are  to  he  taken  alony-side  hv  the 
consignee  immediately  after  the  vessel  is  ready  to  discharge, 
or  otherwise  they  will  he  deposited  at  the  expense  of  th(^ 
consignee,  and  at  the  risk  of  tire,  loss  or  injury  in  the  ware- 
house provided  foi"  that  purpose  on  the  wharf."  It  was 
held  that  tlH'i'c  wa'*  nothing  in   this  condition  which  would 

"'  WiKUo  V.  Crcat  Western  K.  Co..  :t7  L.  T.  Ht'p.  (N.  S.)  ISO  (IS77). 
•■«  Kfi-m-y  V.  i.ivmul  Trunk  Ac.  R.  Co.,  .'>!)  Hiir)>.  104  (1870). 


ti 


£' 


".*■ 


i 


1J)2 


TlIK  CON  in  ACTS  OK  CAKIUEKS. 


[CII.  VII. 


relieve  the  ciirrier  from  liability  for  loss  oeeiirriiiir  l>y  llie 
delivery  of  the  iroods  to  the  wroiiii'  person  l)v  the  clerk  who 
htul  control  of  the  waieliouse,  which  helonucd  to  the  t-arrier."' 
The  conrt  distiniiuisheil  this  ease  from  that  of  Ti.f'  >S(i)iffi','"'' 
Avhere  the  uoods  were  to  he  delivei'ed  at  the  wharf,  hut  tiie 
carrier  was  not  in  charii'e  of  the  wharf,  and  the  iioods  were 
taken  away  hv  an  unauthorized  person  without  the  ap-ncv 
or  interference  of  the  carrier  or  his  servants.  Where  one 
had  contracted  with  a  eoinnion  cari'ier  for  the  transpor- 
tatation  of  iroods,  and  afterwards  discoverinii'  that  the  car- 
rier had  been  iiiiilty  of  material  misrepresentations,  for- 
bade him  to  undertake  tlu^  carriains  which  eommand,  how- 
ever, the  carrier  disreirarded,  and  the  jroods  were  daniM<j:ed 
while  in  the  course  of  transportation,  though  without  his 
neglect,  it  Avas  held  that  the  consi<fnor  had  a  right  to  ter- 
minate hi.s  contract  as  he  did,  and  that  the  carrier  in  insist- 
ing on  carrying  the  goods  did  so  at  his  own  peril  upon  risks 
and  responsibilities  incident  to  tiie  employment,  without  re- 
gard to  any  limitation  of  liability  contained  in  the  contract 
oriirinallv.'" 

3»  Colliii.s  V.  Burns.  ;i(J  X.  Y.  (S.  <".)  r.ls  (1S7;5).  (;;i  N.  V.  1  (1S7.-)).  s.t 
m1s(.  Oiiillaiimc  v.  Il'imhiir,;,'  i^c  I'ark.-t  Co..  |-.>  \.  Y.  "JIJ  (1S70) ;  (.Ifii- 
dcll  V.  TliDiiisoii,  ,■)(■)  N.  Y.  I'.M  (1.S7-I;. 

■■«7  niatchf.  1S(!  (1870). 

"^  D;iiU'h  V.  Silliiiiaii.  ■_'  h:iii.<.  IJUl  (1S70). 


m 


T^   '^IWk*    , 


<'U.  VIII.]  CONSTRUCTION  OF  CONT1JACT8. 


198 


CIIAPTKH  \  III. 


THE  CONSTiaCTION  OF  CONTHACTS    LIMITl\(i  LIABILITV. 

XK.criox. 

1 »!».    Tilt!  UuittMl  States  Statiites  as  to  ( 'arrieiis  by  Water. 

l."i().     Exc('])ti()iis  ill  till'  ("out met -i  of  Carriers  Coustnietl  Strietlj'. 

I.")l.     Tiie  >[axiiii  Kxprcssio  riiiiiscst  Kxcliisiu Alteriiis. 

I'rj.    Opinion  of  IJijjclow.  C.  .1.,  on  the  Ai)i)lii'ation  of  the  Maxim. 

15;i.     Tfrins  ill  Insurance  I'olii-ies  and  Hills  of  Lading  Constnied  Dif- 
ferently. 

l-M.     lnleri>retatiiin  of  Words  and  IMirases  in  Contracts. 

l.'i.'i.     '•Accidental  Delays. 

i.".i!.     "  Aitrces." 
All  Kail." 
Arlicle.*" 


I. -.7. 

l.->s. 
I.V.l. 

i(;(t. 

inj. 
|(;:{. 
ici. 

Kir.. 


See  ••  Leakage  and  Brealiasie." 


Hii;. 

Kir. 

I  (•.;>. 
170. 
171. 
17-'. 


Baggage." 
'  nreaka,i:-c." 

C.  O.  D." 

( 'onteii;>  liiknown."     See  ••  Valne  and  Contents  rnknown." 

Damage." 

Dangers  Incident  to  the  Navigation  of  tlie  IJiver."  Sec  ••  Dan- 
gers of  Navigation." 

1)  iiigcMs  of  Navigation."  .\nd  herein  ••  Dangers  Incident  to  the 
Navigation  of  the  River,"  ••  Dangers  of  the  Lake,"  ••  Dangers 
of  the  l{i\('r."  ••  Dangers  of  the  Seas."  •■  Inevitable  Acci- 
dents," >•  Perils  of  the  Lake."  •■  Perils  of  the  Jtiver,"'  "Perils 
of  the  Seas"  and  "  l'na\  oidable  Accidents."  See  also  '•  I'mi- 
void.-iblc  Accidents." 

•  Dangers  of  the  Lake."     .See  ••  Dangers  of  Navigation." 

•  Dangers  of  the  Kiver."     Sec  ••Dangersof  Navigation." 

■  Dangers  of  the  Ifoads." 

•  Dangers  of  tli.-  Seas."     S(!e  ••  Dangers  of  Navigation." 

•  Deliciency  in  <^iianlity." 

•  Dciii.t." 

■  Lrrors." 

L! 


.^mmt..' 


fM 


194 


TIIK  rONTRACTS  OK  CAHItlERS. 


[ni. 


vm. 


U:   • 


-KCTIOX. 

17;!.  ••  Escapes." 

171.  ■•  KMriKir.liiiury  Miiiiiir  Ki-i;."' 

17.").  ••  I'ct'il,  WaliT  ami  'I'akc  I'ldpi'i-Carc  I'f."' 

17().  ••Kin'." 

177.  ••  l'"(ir\v:inl." 

178.  ••  Frce/ini,'." 
17!).  ••  From  Wliatcvor  <  'aiisc.'" 
ISO.  ••  (iiMxl  Onlcr  ami  I'oiKiilioii."" 
181.  ••  llt'at.  .SiiffocallDii  and  tlic  Otlicr  111  Effcft.s  of  B(iii>;(; 
ISiJ.  ••  lii(vilal)lt'  ,\c('i(l('iils.""     ^^'^•  -  l>an;;<TS  of  Naviputioii 

V(ii(lai)I('  Arcidciits." 
Iiilicicnt  Dctciioration." 
licalvafjji'  anil  IJii'al<a^t'." 
Load  and  rnioad." 
Loss." 


is:{. 

181. 

IS.-). 

lS(i 

187. 

188. 

18!). 

1!)0. 

l!tl. 

v.i:\. 

194. 

V,C>. 
VM. 
1!)7. 
1!)S. 
1!)!). 
•200. 
201. 
202. 
20;{. 
201. 
20.^). 
20(1. 
207. 
208. 
20!t. 
210. 
21 1 . 


rowdt'd." 
I'lia- 


Owncr's  Hisii." 
On  I,akt's  or  l{iv< 
On  liic  Train." 
I'aclxajrc."     S('<'  • 
IVriis  ol"  tiic  Lal<('. 
rcrilsof  the  Www. 


Arli'.'ic. 
Sec 
Si'c 
Si'c 


'  Dangers  of  Navijjation."' 

•  Danj^crs  of  Naviixation." 

•  DangfTs  of  Navigation." 


••  I'lTils  of  tilt"    Seas. 

••  rcrisiiahtf  rmpii'iy." 

■•  Piiol.  .Master  or  Mariners." 

••  I'iai  !■  of  Destination." 

■•  Tor!  of  Disehargc." 

••  rriviii';.'.'!'  of  Kfshipi)ing." 

••  t^nantity  (Jnaranteed." 

••  Restraints  of  I'rinces." 

'•  Kobber.s." 

••Suffocation." 

'•  Tliieves."     See  ••  J{(il)l)ei-^." 

••  Tin'ongli  'VVitliont  Transfer." 

■'Tow  and  Assist  Vessels." 

••  I'navoidahle  Aci'idents."     See  also  "  Danger.- 

••  Value  and  (.'onicnts  I'liluiown." 

••  \'iei(insiicss." 

•■  Watered  and  Vi-t]."' 

*•  Weatlier.  Injni'ies  Oceasioneil  l)y." 

(.'oiilliet  <if  l.aws. 


if  Navigation. 


§    lt!».     77/("    (^n/fril    .Sfaf(\s    Statute  as  to    (Jarrhm   hif 

Water. —  licfoi-o  })r()('t'i'cliiiir  to  Iho  gononil  .smbjcct  of  Ihi.s 

chiiptoi-,  it    iniiy   l)(>   propci-  to   set  out  tho  .sttituto   of    the 

United   Sttilcs    rcliiliiio-  to  ctirrior.s  by  wjitcr  iind  the  deci.s- 


("II.   VIII.]  fONSTKlCTION  OF  COXTKAC'TS. 


195 


ions  tlicrcundor.  These*  provisions  are  ii^iven  in  C"iiiipt(  r  six 
(•(>iic('rnin<f  tlic  triUis|)ortiitioii  of  pjisscnjrors  and  nierclian- 
(lisc,  contained  in  Title  for(y-ei«rlit  of  tlie  Kcvised  Statute's  of 
the  I'niti'd  States,  relatinir  lo  Coniineree  and  Navipition, 
and  are  as  follows:  *SVr.  42-Sl.  If  any  shij)per  of  [)latiiia^ 
jfold,  iifoid  dust,  silver,  bullion  or  other  i)reeious  nielals, 
eoins,  je\v<'lrv,  bills  of  any  hank  or  public  body,  diamonds, 
or  other  precious  stones,  or  any  jrold  or  silver  in  a  luariufac- 
tured  or  unmanufactured  slate,  watches,  docks  or  tinie- 
l»ieces  of  any  description,  triid<ets,  orders,  notes  or  securi- 
ties for  payment  of  money,  stamps,  majts,  writiiiirs,  tille- 
doeds,  pi'intiuirs,  enuravinjis,  pictures,  irold  or  silver  plate 
or  |)lated  articles,  ji'lass,  china,  silks  in  a  manufactured  or 
immanufaetured  state,  and  whether  wroutrht  u[)  or  not 
wrouirht  up  with  any  other  material,  furs  or  lace,  or  any  of 
them,  contai.ied  in  any  parcel,  or  packajiV  or  tr  .nk,  shall 
lade  the  same  as  freiirht  or  bairuaire  on  any  vessel  without 
at  the  time  of  such  ladinir  u'ivinu"  to  the  master,  clerk,  a^ent 
or  owner  of  such  vessel  rt'ceivinji'  the  same  a  written  notice 
of  the  true  character  and  value  thereof,  and  having  tho 
same  entered  on  the  bill  of  lading  therefor,  the  master  and 
owner  of  such  vessel  shall  not  be  liable  as  arriers  thereof 
in  any  form  or  manner  ;  nor  shall  a''V  such  ;  laster  or  owner 
lie  lialde  for  any  such  goods  l>eyond  the  valu  •  and  according 
to  the  character  thereof  so  notified  an  1  entered.  iSfr.  42.S2, 
No  owner  of  any  vessel  shall  be  liable  to  answer  for  or 
make  good  to  any  iierson  any  loss  or  damage  which  may 
hai)peii  to  any  merehandise  whatsoever  which  shall  be  ship- 
ped, taken  in  or  put  on  board  any  such  vessel,  by  reason  or 
by  means  of  any  lire  happening  to  or  on  board  the  vessel, 
unless  such  tin*  is  caused  by  the  design  or  neglect  of  such 
owner.  See.  42S;?.  The  liability  of  tlu  owner  of  any  ves- 
sel for  any  embezzlement,  loss  or  (h'struction  by  any  person 
of  any  i)roperty,  goods  or  merchandise  shipped  or  put  on 
board  of  such  vessel,  or  for  any  loss,  damage  or  injury  by 
{■ollision,  or  for  any  act,  matter  or  thing  lost,  damage  or 
forfeiture  done,  occasioned  or  incurred  without  the  i)rivity 


'■^^:Mmm<. 


11K5 


THE  CONTIJACTS  OF  CAIMUKKS. 


[Cir.  VIII. 


or  kiiowlodjic  of  such  ownor  or  owners  slmll  in  no  cuse  ox- 
coed  the  amount  or  value  of  tlio  interest  of  sueli  owner  in 
such  vessel  and  her  freijjcht  then  j)ending.  iSfc.  4281. 
"Whenever  any  .- ach  enihez/lenieni,  loss  or  destruction  is 
suffered  by  several  freijjfhters  or  owners  of  iroods,  wares, 
merchandise  or  any  ijroperty  whatever  on  the  same  voya<ife, 
and  the  whole  value  of  the  vessel  'ind  her  frei<;ht  for  the 
vovasre  is  not  sutKcient  to  makt^  compensation  to  each  of 
them,  they  shall  receive  eomiM'nsation  from  the  owner  of 
the  vessel  in  i)roportion  to  their  respective  losses;  and  for 
that  purpose  the  freijihti'rs  and  [_f)iriif'r']  [owners]  of  the 
]!r()i)crty  and  the  owner  of  the  vessel,  or  any  of  them,  may 
take  the  ai)propriat<'  pi'occedin<is  in  any  court  for  the  pur- 
2)()sc  of  ap|)()rtionin«r  the  sum  for  which  the  owner  of  tlu' 
vessel  may  be  lial)lc  among  tiie  pai'tics  entitled  thereto. 
/Sec.  4285.  It  shall  be  deemed  a  sutHcient  compliance  on  the 
l)art  of  such  ownei-  with  the  nM|uirements  of  this  'I'itle  re- 
lating to  his  lial)ility  for  any  embezzlement,  loss  or  destruc- 
tion of  any  i)ropertv,  goods  or  merchandise,  if  he  shall 
transfer  his  interest  in  such  vessel  and  fi'cight  for  th*'  bene- 
fits of  such  claimants  to  a  ti'ustee  to  be  apjiointed  by  any 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  to  act  as  such  tiuslee  for 
the  person  who  may  prove  to  ln'  legally  entitled  thereto; 
from  and  after  which  transfei-  all  claims  and  proceedings 
against  the  owner  shall  cease.  ,Ser.  128(1.  The  charterer  of 
any  vessel,  in  case  he  shall  nnm,  victual  and  navigate  sijeli 
■•'essel  at  his  own  e.\pcns(>  or  by  his  own  pi-ocurenn-nl,  shall 
be  deemed  the  owner  of  such  vessel  within  the  meaning  of 
the  pi'ovisions  of  this  Title  relating  to  th<'  limitation  of  the 
liability  of  the  owners  of  vessels  :  and  such  vessel  when  so 
chartered  shall  be  liable  in  the  same  manner  as  if  navigated 
by  the  owner  thereof,  .SV'r-.  4287.  Nothing  in  the  live  ])i'c- 
cedin<i'  sections  shall  be  construed  to  take  away  oi'  affect  the 
I'l'Hiedy  to  which  any  party  may  b'3  entitled  again>t  the  mas- 
ter, otlicers  or  seamen  for  or  on  account  of  any  embezzle- 
ment, injury,  loss  or  destruction  of  merchandise  oi- [)ropcrty 
])ut  on  board  any  vessel,  or  on  account    of  anv  negligence. 


■  'WdMWi 


ni.  vrii.]  fONSTHLCTio.v  of  coxtkacts. 


lit? 


fraud  or  other  iiiiilvcrsiitioii  of  such  lUMstcr,  ()tfio(M'.s  or  scii- 
int'ii  rcspoclivcly,  nor  to  h-ssi'ii  or  take;  away  any  responsi- 
l)ility  to  which  any  master  or  sciiuiau  of  any  vessel  may  by 
law  l)e  liahh',  n(»twitlistan(lin_ir  sucl;  master  or  seaman  may 
!)('  an  owner  or  i-art  owner  ov  tlie  vessel.  <SVr.  t-'SS.  Any 
person  shiiipiuiT  oil  of  vitriol,  unslaked  lime,  inllannnahle 
matches  or  ^uniKtW(K'r  iii  a  vessel  takini;  carjro  for  divers 
persons  on  freiiiht,  without  (U'liverinu*  at  the  time  of  ship- 
ment a  note  in  writiuijj,  expressino-  the  nature  and  character 
of  such  mei'chandisc  to  the  master,  mate,  olHcer  or  i)er- 
son  in  charu'c  of  the  ladini;  of  the  vessel,  shall  he  lialtle 
to  the  I'nited  States  in  a  penalty  of  one  thousand  dollars. 
Mut  this  cction  shall  not  ii|>l)ly  to  any  vessel  of  any  de- 
scription whatsoever  used  in  I'ivei's  or  inland  naviji'ation. 
.SV'C.  I^Sl'.  'I'he  provisions  of  [M/n  'J\'//r']  [the  seven  })re- 
cedinu"  se-  .Mtus]  relatinu"  to  the  limitation  of  the  liahilily  of 
the  owm  rs  of  vessels  shall  not  apply  to  the  owners  of  any 
canal-lioaf,  hart-e  or  liuhti'r,  or  to  any  vessel  of  any  descrip- 
tion whatsoever  used  in  rivers  or  inland  naviiration.' 

§  l.'»().  h'.i-c('p/i(iiis  ill  (he  ( 'oiifnu-fs  of  ('(irricvs  (Jonxtvucd 
Slrlrlh/. —  In  an  old  work  al'-eady  referred  to,'-'  the  writer 
aflei'  reui'cttinir  that  the  Knirlish  courts  had  pi-rmittcd  the 
introduction  of  notices  to  limit  the  connnon  law  liahilities 
of  c'arriers,  adds:  "  Hut  this  tler«'liction  of  public  duty  has 
not  heen  always  successfully  effecte<l,  the  .ourts  having  af- 

'  Kcv.  Stat.  I'.  S.  ls7s.  '{"his  siiitiitc  does  not  iipj'y  to  carriei's  l)y 
liiiid  (N't'w  Vdi-K  Cciiti-al  ii;:c.  I{.  Co.  v.  !-'i-aloff.  !l  Cent.  L.  J.  1:52  (1S7!I) ; 
nor  to  ii  pa-iseiijicf  l>y  water  who  eai'fies  in  liis  trunk  liis  ordiiiai'y  wear- 
ing n|)paiel.  ornaments  and  professional  implements,  however  rare  or 
vahiahlc  they  may  lie.  IJrock  v.  (Jale.  11  Kla.  .")'JI{  (187 tj.  The  excep- 
tion as  to  ••inland  navij:;ation ""  does  not  inehide  vessels  used  on  the 
LTieat  lakes.  .See  also  as  to  the  constrneiion  of  this;  statute.  The  City  of 
llartfoid  V.  'IMie  ruit.  II  IMatehf.  -J'.K)  (Is7:t):  The  (.'ity  of  Norwich.  1 
Hen.  S!i  (isdC.) :  The  \iafj:ara  v.  Cordes.  i\  How.  7  (IS.")Sj;  Thorp  v. 
Hammond.  1-2  Wall.  lOS  (1S7(>);  .N'orwieh  Co.  v.  Wrij-ht,  Kl  Wall.  1(14 
(1871) :  Walker  v.  Transportation  Co..  ;{ Wall.  I.V)  (180.")) ;  Keeiie  v.  The 
Whistler. -i  Sawy.  :(I8  (187;{);  Allen  v.  Muekay.  1  Spra.^^ue.  21!)  (1854); 
Moore  V.  .\merican  Trans.  Co..  '24  How.  I    (18(Jt)). 

'  Antf.  Cap.  IV.  §  87. 


'  ■'J 
'  /I 

I 


■'H^smm^^ 


1!>« 


Tin:  CONTItACTS  OF  CAKKIKItS. 


[n. 


vm. 


fordi'il  cvi'iT  rcliff  in  llicir  power  l)_v  const niiiiji-  such  no- 
tices most  sti'ictiy  in  the  hin^Uiiiic  and  r('<|uii-in,<r  as  ci|iiallv 
strict  a  proof  of  tiic  pul)licit.v  l(»  Itc  uivcn  tiu'in."  '  In 
America  the  same  policy  has  been  followed  Ity  tin-  courts, 
ami  it  has  become  a  cardinal  rule  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  contracts  of  common  carriers  that  while  they  may  he 
allowi'il  to  |»rovide  I»y  conti'act  for  ex«'mi)tion  from  theii- 
common  law  lial)ility,  yet  that  this  must  he  dohv'  in  clear 
and  unaml)ii>uous  laiiiiuaire.  Kxceptions  Inserted  in  their  re- 
ceipts and  eontra<'ts  are  construed  strictly  ajzainst  tliem.^ 
Examples  of  this  rule  are  <j:\\v\\  in  the  notes  to  the  present 
section  and  in  other  poi'tions  of  this  work.'  (Jeiieral  words 
of  exemption,  when  used  after  a  spccilicatioii  of  partieulai- 
exemptions  and  risks,  will  he  presumed  to  include  only 
those  of  a  similar  charactei'  unless  a  different  intent  ap- 
jjcar."  A  receipt  uiveii  liy  a  connuon  carrier  must  he  taken 
altoirether  ;  (»ne  part  can  not  he  sejjarated  fi'om  the  othei-  in 
interprctiuiT  it.' 

ij  If)!.   Till'  Max! Ill  h\rj)ri's.'<iu  I'liiiis  rsf  /'Jxr/ii.'<io  A/frn'iis. 

'  .It'iciiiy  oil  ("anit'is.  Tli.  I.  ji  "2  OSl,")). 

^  .M;i;'iiiii  V.  Diiisiiiorc.  .')(;  N.  Y.  KiS  'IsTl):  Stfclc  \.  'I'ow  ii-cnil.  ;!7 
Alii.  JIT  (ISdl);  Ayif^  V.  W.'slciii  H.  Co.,  II  IJlalili.  !»  (IsTfl);  fiiioii 
^Mllt.  Ills.  ('(I.  V.  Ill(li!lli:i|ii(lis  \c.  H.Cii..  1  I*i-;lH'V,  ISO  (lS.-)7);  St.  Loilis 
I'ic.  It.  Co.  V.  Siiiiick.  4!»  Iiiil.  :{()J  (IS71):  Haitcr  v.  Wlii-flir.  I'.i  \.  II.  1) 
(ISdli):  SoiitlitTii  Kxpit'ss  Co  V.  Moon.  :i!)  Miss.  s;{-j  ( |S(i:().  Wliil.- it  is 
coiiiiif'ti'iil  for  coiiiiiioii  ciirriiTs  to  in'oviili-  liy  foniract  for  rxi'inptioii 
from  their  COIIIIIIOII  l;i\v  ii:il)ilily.  it  iiiiisi  lit>  doii"  in  cliai'Miiil  iiiiaiiilii;:;iioiis 
]aii^iia<;t'.  and  tiic  nilc  tliat  tin'  lanniia;:;"'  of  contract^  if  aiiiliii^iioiis  is  to 
lie  construed  ay;aiiist  tiif  party  ii-innit.  slioiild  lie  riujidiy  apiiiicd  to  siicli 
contracts.  Kdsall  v.  Canidrn  i>ir.  I!.  <'o..  .".O  N.  V.  iKll  (Is7-j,.  ••  .\s 
tlic  cxccplioii  is  an  innovation  on  tin-  principles  df  law.  and  intr<i- 
diiced  exclusively  for  the  heiii'lil  of  llii'  earrier.  the  eonstriielion  must  lie 
most  stroii^jly  auain-t  him."  I.i-verin;;  v.  I'nioii  Trans.  Sir.  Cn.,  |2 
]\Io.  SS  (ISO").  •'  Ikestrielions  on  tlie  eonmioii  law  lialiililies  of  eominon 
carriers  in  a  recei|ii  i;i\-eii  for  floods  delivereil  to  them  for  tran-iiorta- 
tion.  drawn  iij)  and  executed  for  them  alone  and  for  tlieir  lienelil,  must 
lie  taken  most  stionjjly  a;>:ain-l  the  earriers."  Hooper  \.  WelN.  -JT  <'al. 
II  (!S(;i). 

'See  Caj).  VI. 

«  Hawkins  v.  Great  Western  U.  Co..  17  Mich.  .^.7  (iSfW). 

'  IJiitler  V.  The  Arrow.  0  McLean.  17l(  (is,").")).    A  foininoii  carrier  may 


fll.  Vm.]  CON8THI  (TION  OV  roNTUACTS. 


1!M> 


—  Mr.  .Iuslic(!   Stoisy.  rt'forriiiiT  to  an   I'iii'ly    Knjilisli  case, 
has  rairti'il  till' (jiicst ion  williont   aiiswcrinir  il,  wlicllicf  if  a 


Mi|>iiliit(3  fur  ('\('iii|iiiiiii  ii'uiii  li:il)ilily  loi'  Inssi's  (icriiniiii;'  llii'iiiiM'li  lii.-. 
iM'>;li;;<'iii'i':  Itiit  lii- I'liiiii'Mcl  will  imi  lir  cnti^truitl  Id  (oiiiiiiii  siit'li  an 

fXi-inptioii.  iiiili'-i-  il  be  so  cxiH'c-i^ly  ii'^'i 1,     'I'll'  i    fo'-c.  wlicrc  llif  t'oii- 

li':ir:  dill  mil  runiaiii  such  t'\|iri'.>  siljuilalinii.  Imt  diil  iinitaiii  a  sti])- 
iilaiioii  liiiiitin;;  llic  ciiiTicr's  lialdlily  in  any  rvcnt  lu  ■-.i.Ml,  ami  tlicro  wus 
l.iiicii  (if  ilii'  niin-ilcliscry  of  tlii'  i^oixN  In  llic  ('c)n*i;ini'c.  and  Unit  some 
niiiiiilis  alU'i' sliljinirnt  llir  lii>\  whicli  had  coniaiin'il  llifin  wa-^  jticki'd 
np  fniply.  ni>  rxplainitiiin  nf  the  nini-dt'livt'ry  iM-iufj  slinwii :  7/»'/(/.  that 
thcM- facts  waiiantcd  ihc  siilnnissinn  of  Ihc  (inc-ilnn  of  nc^liircncc  to 
till' jnry,  who.  in  tlii'lr  verdict,  should  n<:t  i'(;;ai'd  the  siipnlation  liinit- 
liij;  lln'  canicr's  liahility  to  )<:){i.  ••  The  leruis  of  lliese  conlracts  are  v<'ry 

much  under  tin nind  of  the  carriers,  and  tlr  y  may  justly  he  reipiired 

III  express  in  plain  lei'ins  the  eiitifc  exemption  foi-  which  they  siipniate. 
The  laiif^ua^e  of  this  clause  'svery  limad;  hut  if  it  he  desired  that  a 
I'lause  siiall  cover  losses  liy  ncjjli^eiicc,  it  is  not  loo  mnch  to  say  that  the 
pmpoM-  nuisl  he  clearly  expressed."  .Mannin  v.  Din-more,  ."iii  X.  Y.  Ui>< 
(IS7lj.  ,\  hill  of  ladinj,' contained  this  pi'ovision:  ■•-Mi  loss  and  dam- 
iifje  *  *  from  any  act.  ne;flect  or  default  what>ncver  of  the  pilot. 
ma-ier  oi'  maiiners  liein;;  excepted,  and  the  owners  liein^  in  no  way  lia- 
hlc  for  any  coii-eiiui'iices  ahove  excepted."  'i"he  floods  were  delivered 
h\  (le  mate  of  the  vessel  on  which  they  were  shipped  to  a  siran;j;er  who 
ncithei  had  nor  presented  any  anihority  to  receive  tliem.  Il  was  litdd 
that  the  jirovisions  in  the  hill  of  ladiiii;  did  not  cover  this  careless  act  of 
the  defendants' serxani.  <iuillaume  v.  llam'mrj;  i^tc  I'acket  l"o.,  42  N. 
Y.  212  (I.S71)).  Il  was  iirovided  in  the  hill  of  ladin;,'  that  the  <,'oi)ds 
.slKHild  he  taken  from  alonjfside  liy  ihe  consii,Niec<.  ••  immcdialdy  the 
ve-»cl  is  really  to  di-cliar>;e.  or  otlierwise  the  |irivilc  ■     is  reserved  to  the 

vessel   to  land  the: i  the  pier.     *     »     *     at  llie  expense  of  the  eon- 

sii;ii"e  and  al  his  risk  of  lire.  |o>s  or  injury:"  //«■/(<.  lii  il  after  such 
landini;  the  ;;oo(ls  remaiiu'd  in  plaintiffs  custody  as  carriers,  snliject  to 
Ihe  modilied  re>pon-il)ility  created  hy  the  conlrael,  until  after  notice  of 
arrival  had  been  i;i\'en  the  consjjrn,.,-  and  a  rea«onalile  lime  had  elapsed 
for  their  removal,  and  that  the  clan>e  did  not  exempt  the  plaintiff  from 
liahility  resnltinjj  from  his  ow  n  nc;fli<rence.  (ileadell  v.  Tliomsoii.  .">(!  N. 
Y.  Iltt  (1S71).  The  anient  of  a  tow-lioal  a-jrecd  to  tow  a  canal  hoat  "at 
the  ri»k"  of  the  master  and  owner  of  il.  the  ma>ter  aj^reein;;  to  liavc  a 
<-ompelent  man  at  the  helm  and  to  f^uaranlee  the  seaw<)rthine<s  of  lii> 
boat  for  the  trip:  /A/i/.  that  Ihe  contract  did  not  exempt  the  owner  of 
the  tow-boat  from  liability  for  Ihe  ne<fli,i^enee  of  his  au,'enl.  whereby  the 
canal  boiU  was  injmed.  A-hmore  v.  I'eimsylvania  Steam  'J'owinjj 
(.'(!..  2S  N.  ,1.  fLaw)  ISO  (istjo).  A  contract  of  hiring-  contained  this 
stipulation:  >•  And  all  risks  incurred  or  liability  to  accidents  whilst  in 
said  service  is  compensated  for  and  covered  by  the  pay  aj^reed  uiion: 
the  said  r:iilri)a(l  comiiany  assmnin^'  n.i  respon-il)ilit\    for  dama;res  from 


!■    J 


2<>(> 


THE  {ONTIIACTS  OK  C'AIMCIKIIS. 


[nr.  VIM. 


carrior's  rontriut  coiitaiii  ccitiiiii  ('X(('i)ti()ns  to  liis  liaMlily, 
hut  omit  those  which  the  coiiiiiioii  hiw  aHoAvs  for  iiis  hcin-tit 
—  thi'  aft  of  (iod  and  the  puhiic  ciiciiiy  —  the  rxpic^s 
fxccptioiis  do  not  cxchidc  the  iniplii'd  ones,''  in  accoid- 
ancf  with  the  maxim  rjjii<t<,sitj  uiii'iin  cut  ixciufiid  uhn-ius^' 


t 


II 


aiTidciit  or  any  raii»e  wliatcvt  r."  It  was  nilt  il  lliat  tills  did  imt  icliivc 
tin-  coiiiiiaiiy  from  an  iiijnrv  n-ii!liii>;  fr<  in  llii-  in  ;rli;;(iH  r  of  ilic 
roiniianv"-  -fivaiil-.  Mcinplii-  »\:f.  |{.  Co.  v.  .loiics.  "J  lli  nd.  ."il7  O^*.'.!!;. 
A  railroad  tlikil  n.ntaiind  tlii- itrovi-ioii :  ••  It  is  a;;nMd  llial  tin-  pfisoii 
acft'ptiii;;  Iliis  ii<  Ixct  a— uiiH's  ill!  ri-li  of  pcrsoiial  iiijiiiy  and  loss  or  diiiii- 
a;j(' to  pr<»])cii.\  uliil-l  ii-iny;  llif  -aim-  on  llic  trains  of  tin-  niinpaiiN ." 
Tills  cvni  If  the  ronipany  loiild  coiili.H  t  against  iif^lifjciicc  would  imt 
Ih' <'ff»'ftnal.  Indiana  iV<'.  I{.  (.•(..  V.  Miiiidy. -Jl  hid.  IS  (l,s(i;i).  in  Niw 
.fprscy  Steam  Navi^ralion  < 'o.  v.  Mficlianls  IJaiiVw.  <i  Mow.  WW  (IM.s).iln' 
contract  contained  ilic  followin;;:  "Take  nolicc— NVilliani  V.  Ilanideii  is 
alone  respoiisiMi-  for  the  lo»  or  injury  of  any  articles  or  luoperiy  ci  ni- 
iiiitted  to  Ids  eaie:  nor  is  any  risk  as«iimetl  liy.  nor  can  any  lie  atlaclnd 
to.  tlie  proprietors  o(  ilie  ^leandioats  in  w  liicli  liis  crate  maybe  and 
transported,  in  re«peet  to  it  and  ii^  contents,  at  any  lime.""  Mr.  tFiisi  ice 
Xelsdii  in  coii-irniii;;  llie  contract  said:  ••  Tlie  laii).nia;re  i  jTeiieral  and 
broad  and  miirbt  veiy  well  cnniprclicinl  every  description  of  risk  iiicidciil 
ti!  the  -liipnieiit.  tint  we  tliiiik  it  would  be  j^oin;;  fiirtlier  than  the  inleiit 
«)f  the  parlh's.  upon  .iny  fair  and  ieason;ible  coiisirnclion  of  the  a^^ice- 
inent.wcre  we  to  icijard  it  as  ^liiiulaiiiij;  for  w  ilfnl  iiii-coi,di;c|.  jri-c.-s 
nei;li;:cnce.  or  w ;'.iii  oi  oidiiiary  i  ari'.  eiilicr  in  the  seaw  oiiliiiic -s  of  the 
vessel,  her  inopcr  ei|Mipments  and  fMiniliirc.  or  in  licr  mana;:;ciiienl  by 
the  nia>tcr  and  hand«.  *  *  *  If  it  i- I'ompcteni  al  all  for  llie  carrier 
to  stipulate  for  the  ;ji'oss  nejilip-nce  of  hinisell  ai'd  his  servants  oi' 
a;;ents  in  the  transportation  of  ;;oods.  it  should  be  rcijiiircd  to  be  done  at 
least  in  teiins  that  would  leave  no  doiibt  as  to  the  meaidii^  of  the 
parties.** 

"  Hever  V.  Tomlinsoii  (17'.»i).  thus  slated  in  Abl  ^tl  on  Shipping  (i;ili 
.\in.  ed.)  p.  4.  c;ip.  •!.  p.  :?m;:  "Inatasc  which  came  before  the  Com t  of 
Kinj^'s  lieiich  a  -hort  time  before  the  late  alteration  of  the  bill  of  ladiiifj 
and  which  was  .•in  action  broii;;hi  to  recover  the  \aliie  of  jjoods  for 
which  the  master  had  >i<;ned  a  bill  of  ladin<;  containin<;'  an  exccpii<in 
only  of  the  periN  of  the  >ea.  alth(iii<.^h  made  durinj;  the  time  of  a  w;ir. 
and  which  j^oods  wi-re  lost  in  coiiseiiuenee  of  the  ship  belli;;  desi^fiiedly 
struck  by  the  vessel  of  an  enemy:  it  was  doubted  by  the  court  whether  a 
loss  so  occasioned  were  within  the  meaning;  of  this  i-xception.  and  llie 
cause  never  proceeded  to  a  tinal  jud;;ment.  'I'he  exjiiess  exception  in 
this  case  afforded  room  to  contend  Ilial  tlie  excejitirtii  of  the  at-t  of  the 
Kinff's  enemies,  which  arises  out  of  ^reneral  lules  of  law.  was  uu-ani  to 
be  excluded  in  thi"  particnlar  instance."* 

"  Storv  on  Itailments.  i  .""mO. 


CII.  VIII.]  COXSTUrrTION  of  (((NTKACTS. 


201 


This  has  lu'vor  ])vvn  scHh'd  in  Kii<j;laii(l  for  flic  reason  tiiat 
tlu>  modern  l>iils  of  l:i(lin<;  contain  all  the  exceptions.  It 
was  said  in  an  early  case  in  South  Carolina  that  if  a  coin- 
nion  carrier  spt-ciallv  undertake  to  deliver  safclv  anv  articio 
carried,  he  will  l)c  l»ound  l>v  his  undei'takinL'  to  ansvM-i'  for 
the  loss,  alth(»ui;h  it  may  happen  from  a  cause  which  in  tho 
ahsencc  of  an  express  conti'act  would  excuse  him;'"  and  in 
Fis/t  r,  Cliapman^^^  where  a  wa;j;oner  contracted  to  deliver 
certain  packages  in  jjood  oi'der  and  condition,  *•  unavoidaido 
accidents  only  excepted,"  it  was  hi'ld  that  this  exception 
excluded  all  others  and  that  lln-refoic  he  would  he  liahle  for 
a  loss  l»y  the  pul)lic  enemy. 

The  case  of  Svtnj'f  r,  I'^nrraitl ,^-  decided  in  the  Knjriisli 
Courl-^   of  Iv\che(iuer  and    Kxehe(|uer  ('hand)er,'''  in    IHT'), 

I"  (iiiilluT  V.  Hiiriii-t.  li  I5rf\ .  iss  (|sll).  'I'lic  iciiortcr  .'pciik-  of  ilic 
loss  ill  ilii- ciisi' iis  an  "miiivdiiliililc  iiccidi'iit,"  but  il  is  cli'Mr  from  llu' 
iipininii  ili;ii  tiiis  phrase  is  iiscd  liy  I'iin  as  "yiioiiymuiis  witli  ilic  ••  ail  of 
(iixi." 

"2  (ia.  :14!)  (1847). 

i--j;{  W.  H.  1(1!).  2  ('fill.  F-.  J.  ;{s;!  (IST.-i).  'i'li,.  facts  slatcil  fully  wcic! 
iis  follows:  Tlic  plaintiff  bcin;;  (Ic-iroiis  of  inovinj;;  liis  fiiriiitinc  fidiu 
I'aijriiloii  to  I'lyiiioiitli,  apjilifd  to  tlic  ih'fciMlniil  for  that  piiiposc,  'I'he 
fiiniitiirt'  v\a>  sfcii  liy  the  dcffiMlaiit's  fofcniaii.  and  the  dt't'cndanl  on  the 
liHli  of  Aiij^iist,  ls7;t.  wroti-  to  thf  plaintiff  in  the  followinjj;  tciins:  "I 
l)i';r  to  inform  yon  that  the  turms  for  th«  removal  of  your  fnrnltnrc  and 
effects,  as  seen  l>y  my  fori'inan.  fnnn  I'ai^fiitoii  to  IMymonth.  will  he  Cl'l 
Ids.,  with  risk  of  hieaKa;;c>  in  tran.'.it.  iiiclndin;;;  the  use  of  all  necessary 
nrits.  case<  and  packini;  inntciials  ami  every  expense.  In  tin;  event  of 
ycnr  a<'ccpiin;j  this  estimate,  he  kind  enonjih  to -iiji;!!  ami  return  to  me 
the  annexed  memorandum  hy  which  I  am  liable  to  the  amount  therein 
spi'cilied."  The  incmorandnm  was  >i^'ned  by  the  plaintiff,  and  was  in 
the  followinj;  terms:  ••  1  hereby  a;(ree  to  pay  yon  the  sum  of  L'1'1  lOs.  for 
the  removal  of  my  fmiiitnre  and  effects  from  I'aijjnton  to  I'lyinonth, 
yon  imdertakiiijn'  risk  of  breakaji:es  (if  any)  not  exeeedinir  C\  on  any  one 
uvtiele."  The  dcfeiiilant  had  an  olllee  in  't'oripiay  and  exliil>ite(l  a  l)oar(l 
t'ontaininj;  tin'  words:  ••  \V.  I'"arranl,  Tonpiay.  S.  I)..  Jfailway  Com- 
pany"  A;;eni.  Mattinj;,  ( 'ases.  A;e..  on  sale  or  hire.  Horses,  Vans,  iV:e., 
on  hire.  I'^xtensive  stores  for  warehonsin^  fnrnitnre  iV:e..  by  the,  week,, 
month  and  ye;ir.  (Joods  and  parcels  collected  :in(l  delivered."  Similar 
words  appi'ared  on  advert isincr  hoards  at  the  railroad  station  and  also  on 
the  defenilanl's  cards.  Tlie floods  were  destroyed  by  tire  dming  transit 
by  rail. 

"  Scaife  v.  Furrunt,  23  W.  K.  SIO.  2  Cent.  I..  J.  CO")  (IST.^i).    The  argn- 


m 


-«» 


w 


20  J 


Till".  COMKAC TS  OF  CAUItlKUS.  [cH.   VIII. 


called  for  the  ;i|i|)lic:iti(iii  of  this  ip.axiiii.  'IMi!-  (l(f»'ii»l:iiit 
w;)s  the  iiircnt  of  a  railroad  coiiipaiiy  for  carrviiiu:  iroo(l,< 
and  i'cmovinsr  f  limit  lire,  and  lie  also  sonl  l^hkIs  and  fnniifurc 

iiicMts  and  jnil;ri!H'iil«  .m  ;i|i|iim1  an-  hcn-w  itli  aii|ivnilcil. 

ill  llif  ( 'iiiiit  _<ii   Kxfli('i|ii.'r  ( 'lianilxT. 

.Imic  "J.").  ~-I,u|H's.  (^.  ('.  I'Cliiiilcs,  with  him  I,  I'ur  tin-  plaintiff.    Tlif  dc 
fciiilaiit  i<  a  ('(iniiiinii  caffii".-.  ami  f\cii  if  In'  i-  in>t   a  I'liniiiinn  rai'ficr.  he 
has.  nil  the  fai  i>  of  liii»  case,  tlu'  lialiiiiiy  of  a  foiiiiiiou  carrii'i-.  ami  iiiii-l 
]h'    llcid  to  ll:l\c'  li'.'iMl  ll;i'  absolute  ill-lircr  of  tllt'sc  ;,'ood-.      ( >ll  liotll  tlli'sr 

jioiiil*  tiic  iM- ■  of  I.ivcr  .Mk.ili  ' 'oiii|iaiiy.  2(1  \V.  ]{.  C.:;;?.  I,.  1{.  7  V.\.  'Ku 
(1.^72).  and  L.  |{.  :t  'As.  :{:{s  (Kx.  (Mi.)  (1S7I).  is  decisive.  In  llial  .msc  in 
tilt'  Cfiiii-t  l)t'lo\v  it  \\,i.-  indil  iliat  tlif  defendant  was  a  coinnioii  latrier. 
i\iid  ill  tills  eoiir'  III. II  iie  had  at  all  events  tlie  lialiility  of  ii  eoninion  rar- 
iiei-.  [IJiett.  .). :  I  liied  to  expft'ss  in  my  jud;;meiit  in  tint  easi  my 
oliiaion  tliat  tlie  di-fenil:iiii  was  not  lialile  a>  a  eoimii  'ii  eairier.  Inn  that 
lie  was  liaMi'  liy  i-easoii  of  a  eiistom.J  'I'iie  jiidirment  of  the  majoriiy  of 
till'  roiirt  x'i'ins  to  lie  tliat  lie  was  lialile  as  a  common  <'ariier.  'I'iie  deti- 
nitioii  of  a  eoiiiiiion  i-airiei-  is  found  in  ( 'ojr.ics  v.  nenianl.  I  ."^m.  I..  ( '. 
2S1  I  17l>:i).  and  the  del.  ndaiii  eomi's  within  the  deiinition  in  (ii'iioiirn 
V.  Iliifst.  1  .Saili.  21'."  (1710..  fl.iish.  .1.:  The  jiidjrimiil  of  .Mr.  .lu-^tiee 
Iiiai-l\lini'ii  in  l.iver  Allxali  ('omiian.\  v.  •lolmson.  does  not  eleaiiy 
iiiaik  the  differeiiee  lietwt'eii  a  eomiiion  carrier  and  one  wlm  t;ike>  on 
liiiiis.'lf  liy  iisa;re  or  contract  the  liahility  of  a  common  carrier.  'I'liese 
are  two  distinct  cases.]  Tlie  plaintiff  relies  iipon  Imtli  |ioinl-.  |<'ock- 
iMiiii.  ( '.  .1. :  .\--nmiii;;  that  the  defendant  i<  a  cominoii  carriev.  lie  w  onid 
be  lialde  for  lireakaj^e:  but  here  there  i- a  ^jieciai  claii-e  rcmleriiii;'  liim 
liable.  ^VIly  was  that  in-ertcd?]  That  is  imt  an  ;ii:reeineiil  to  cNcinpt 
«lefeiidant  fi''  '11  the  liability  of  a  caniei-:  it  i«  merely  a  ciaii-e  ti\in;j  the 
niea-iiire  of  nania^re-  on  each  article  in  tli"  event  of  a  certain  kind  of  ac- 
«'ident :  it  does  not  di~ili  ir;;e  the  defendant,  ('lirke  \.  (ira;  .  i;  Kast,  ")t'i| 
(IMI.")).  The  defendant  can  not.  by  makin;:  :i  --jiecial  >lipiiialion  .i^  ,n 
i'ertain  delaiU  of  his  duty  a-  a  common  carrier,  alter  bis  ciiaractei'  ;i> 
8tii  h  carrier  or  relie\e  liinweif  from  his  ;;;ineral  ri  --pon-ibiiity. 

Cole.  C^.  ('.  (I'inder.  with  iiiini.  for  tlie  delemlanl  :  The  jiid;;:meiit  nf 
the  court  b(dow  is  rij^lit :  the  defendant  i- not  a  common  cirrier.  and  if 
lie  is.  ...till  in  liie  present  I'.ase  he  ha-  limiied  his  liability  by  a  special 
t'liiilracl.  lie  inspects  irooils  in  each  ca-c  ••im!  makes  ,,  ■•■■iiraci  wiili 
','acli  cnstonier.  The  terms  of  his  ad\erii~eiiieiii  exclude  the  contention 
thai  he  i-  a  common  carrier,  and  tlie  letter--  thai  p.is-ed  between  the 
plaintiff  and  ilefendant  clearly  .^iiow  that  a  special  contract  was  made  in 
thi-  case.  Tile  jikIm;!!!!' It  of  Mr.  .Insiice  Creswell  in  \Vliite  v.  (ireat 
\Ve<;e!n  |{.  Co..  .")  W.  Ii.  iss.  2  C.  U.  (N.S.)  7  (  In.'>7  i.  i- in  point.  Tlie 
le.iriied  jml;j:e  says.  p.  I!l:  ••  It  ;i|)peareil  that  the  dereiid.in;-  did  not  re- 
i'ci  ■■.'  floods  to  be  cari'ied,  unless  the  consiirnor  sij^ned  a  paper  coiitainin;^' 
various  con. litions.  The  jndf;e  wlm  presided  at  tiie  trial  tlionifhl  that 
fonliact  was  sjiecial,  and  tlial  the  defendants  did  not   receive  the  yood- 


ff 


liMfa^ 


\i^--*-*am,H 


(II.   VIM.]  ("ONSTIM'fTION  OF  CONTUArTS. 


203 


ill  his  own  VMiis  to  all  piirts  of  Kii<:l:iii(l.  lie  puhlislicd  ii 
cMitl  ill  wliidi  lie  set  forth  his  husincss,  Iht'  ciird  concluding 
iis  foUows:   "Conlnicts  ciilcrcd  into  foi-  rcniovinir  furniture 

MS  cciiiinuii  1  Miiiris.  'riic  cciiiri  i- III  i>|iiiii<>ii  tlial  lie  w  a>  rijilil."  'i'hat 
ca-i' a|i|ilics  line.  Miiinl  \ .  Dalr.  s  ( '.  iS;  1'. -.Mi:  (ls;{7).is  authority  for 
till'  (li'fcmlaiil.  Ill',  as  ilic  ili  fi'iilaiii  tlirrc.  incn'l.v  li-ls  out  carts  for 
hire,  anil  luTc  as  IIuti'.  Ilic  ciuilrart  i»  only  to  cairy  Ilic  irooils  .-afcly  as 
far  a-  i-i'irai(i>  llic  ni'i;lrr|  of  liini-rif  ami  liis  srivants.  anil  not  to  insure 
ihrirsafi'lv  Ml  all  i'\fnl-.  <  'ur.  mh-.  nilt. 

Till'  folio"  iiiir  jiiiliruirnU  wi'M'  -iil)-i'i|iii'Mtly  iIi'IImti'iI  : 
.Mcllor.  •!. :  I  am  of  opinion  that  tlii<  jnil;^'ini'nt  nuisl  lie  aHirnii'il.  'I'lic 
fads  appear  to  me  clearly  to  show  that  the  ilelivei'v  of  the  furniture  in 
(|iii'-lion  to  the  (lefenilanl  \\as  not  a  ilelivery  to  him  as  a  eommon  carrier 
or  a<  luiilcrlaKinj::  the  lialiililie-:  whieh  attach  to  a  couiuioii  carrier,  hut 
\\as  a  ilelivery  iiniler  a -peilal  contrai'l .  to  lie  eolleeteil  from  the  lettei's 
of  the  ilefenilani  to  the  ]ilaiiuiff.  and  the  niemoi  ainliuu  signed  hy  the 
plaintiff.  I  thinl\  thai  the  nie.'inimrof  the  letters  ami  memoranilum  is. 
thai  the  ilifemlaiit  ua-  willinj;'  to  remove  the  furniture  from  I'aii^ulon  to 
riymoutli  for  the  «um  of  £-J2  KN.Jie  uiidortakiii:,'  the  particular  risk  of 
hreakaiie.  not  exceeiliujr  U'l  on  an.\' one  article.  (»f  eoiu'.-e  thi>  does  not 
cM'ludc  liahilitN  foi-  ne;ili;r,.iice  or  want  of  reasonalile  care  on  thi'  part 
of  the  defendants  ;iuil  his  servant-.  I  think  tliat  the  circuin<tances  of 
tile  ea^e  >lio\v  that  the  dcfi'iidani  undertook  no  other  ri-k  of  casualty 
than  that,  and  the  ar;.iunieiii  for  the  plaintiff  has  failed  to  show  that  any 
fiiiliier  M'  more  exteii-ive  lialiilitv  allached  to  the  difeiidanl .  The  eou- 
teiiiion  I'll  liehalf  of  the  pl.iiiiiiff  rested  mainly  upon  thi'  .iMil;>'iiii'iit  in 
|,i\er  .Mk.'di  (oiniiaiiy  v.  .lohii- m.  in  the  Mxchtijiier  ( 'hanitier.  I..  1{. 
!i  ]',\.  'X\S  (I^TI).  Had  that  ca-e  imt  lieeii  clearly  di-tin)j:uishalile  in  its 
faci-  from  the  piesent.  it  would  ha\e  heeii  l.iiidin;:'  upon  us  sittiii.uas  a 
co-ordinali'  loiirl  of  appeal,  and  it  can  only  he  i|iialiti"!l  or  rever-ed  hy 
a  ill  .  i-imi  of  ihe  lloiis,.  ,,f  I.nrds.  |'nr  my-e!f  I  deelilie  ciii  tlie  ]iresellt 
oeia-iou  to  di-ciiss  the  niounds  upon  whii  h  that  ca-e  proeetded.  hceausc 
I  think  it  is  entirely  unneee-s.iry  to  do  so,  and  !  therefore  eoiifiiie  i»iy  dc- 
ei-ioii  to  ihe  nieaiiiiiLr  of  the  -pecial  conlraet  hetwei  11  Jtw  parti«»i«,  to 
whirh  I  have  already  referred.  I  may  add  that  my  hrolher  firovc  ajfrefii 
ill  this  judgment. 

I,llsll..l.;  Il  does  imt  appear  to  he  neees..iu\  Id  deeidi'  the  ipiestion 
wlii''li  wa-  tir-t  ari^iied  on  this  appeal,  namely,  whetlier  the  defendant 
coini's  within  the  detinition  of.  or  whether  in  the  ordinary  course  of  his 
hiisiiiess  lie  incurs  the  liahility  of  a  common  carrier,  so  a-  to  he  aiiswera- 
t)le  for  damage  to  ihe  yfoods  not  caused  hy  any  act  or  default  of  himself 
or  his  .servants.  I  airne  w  itli  the  eoiirt  ludow  tlial  the  lettors  and  meino- 
randiiiu  eontained  in  this  ea  e  eoii-tiliite  a  speelal  contract,  and  1  think 
that  whether  withoul  those  letters  the  defendant  would  have  heen  liahle 
or  Hot  for  the  accident  which  liai>pone(l  to  the  );oo(ls,  the  terms  of  tlie 
coiitraci  siillleieiitly  show  that  Imtli  parties  understood  that   the  risk  iiii- 


'wsw^gj/gggg^i- 


Is: 


204 


•! 


I 


f 


THE  CONTKACTfS  OF  rAUUIEUS.  [cil.  VIII, 


to  or  from  any  part  of  the  Kingdom.  Kstimati's  <rivcn 
free."  The  plaintiff  sent  eertain  furniture  hy  the  (U'feiid- 
ant  on   the  railroad,  under  an  agreement   wliieh  set  forth 

(liM'takcii  by  the  iIcfcnilMiit  \v;is  of  a  iniu'li  ininc  limited  natiirc.  Tl  c 
letters  written  l»y  tlie  (lefeiidaiit.  tlie  pi'diiosal  -ii;iie(l  1)\  liiiii  iiieldsiiii^ 
the  answer  to  be  retin-ned.  and  wiiich  was  aceurdiii^ly  returned  si^jned 
l>y  the  plaintiff,  form  the  cdntract  in  tliis  ca-e.  The  propioal  is,  •■  riie;;' 
to  inform  yon  tlie  terms  for  remo\al  of  yonr  fnrniiure  will  l)e  £22  Id-., 
with  the  risk  of  hri'aka;xes  in  transit.  In  tlie  e\«'nt  of  your  aeee|(tin;^ 
this  estimate.  In-  kind  enon<;li  to  return  to  me  the  aimexed  memoraiidiini 
l)y  wliii'h  I  am  liable  to  the  amoinit  speeitied."  Tlie  answer  i<  in  thes(> 
terms:  ••  I  hereby  ajjree  to  pay  yon  tlie  -nm  of  1.22  10».  *  *  *  y,,n 
nndertakiiij^  risk  of  breakaj^e  (if  anyl  not  exeeeilin;;'  t.">  on  any  one 
article."  It  w.is  eontended  by  the  plaintiff-  eonii-el  that  these  doeii- 
ineiits  should  be  read  as  merely  liinitiiifj:  the  ainoniu  which  .-honid  lie 
payalile  by  the  defendant  in  the  event  of  dama-ie  Uy  breakaiie.  leavin;;' 
him  by  implicalion  liable  to  the  full  extent  for  all  other  ca>nallies.  It  is 
impossible.  I  think,  to  iml  siieh  a  constriietion  on  the  letters,  or  to  sup- 
pose that  either  party  so  niiderstood  them.  The  fail-  meaiiini;  of  them  is 
that  the  defendant  was  willing  to  undertake  a  paiiiiiilar  and  no  other 
casualty,  and  to  pay  up  to  f.")  for  any  article  damaired  by  that  ca-nally. 
and  this  the  plaintiff  nm-t  have  nnder-^iood  to  be  the  meaniuir.  and  b>' 
that  contract  liotli  partie-  are  bound.  1  au:rec  that  ilii-  conuiirt  doe- 
not  exclude  liability  for  such  daniai;e  ,i-  miyht    re-ult   from   want  of  due 

and  reasonable  care  in  the  packing;  or  the  eari-iajje  of  the  >s I-.  but   the 

damap'  which  happened  was  not  caused  by  any  -iicli  default.  Iiut  \\a-  as 
far  as  the  defi'iidaut  was  conceriKMJ  purely  accidental.  I  tliercfdi-e  think 
that  the  iud'niient  should  be  allirmed.  and  in  thi-  juilirnient   mv  brother 


J' 
rjndley  aj^rees. 

Denmaii.  .1. :  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  Judi.nneni  of  the  <'<>urt  of  Ex- 
chequer oui;ht  to  be  allirmed.  It  w,i-  coiii ended  for  the  defendani.  lii-l. 
that  the  "general  coinv-e  of  hi-  ilealin<;  did  not  make  bim  a  cuinmon  car- 
rier, or  one  who  was  subject    to  the  li.'ibilil\  'if  a  ii.niinoii  carri"r  7/"/ 

furniture  undertaken  to  be  carrii'd;   ami  s inlly.  that  c\eii  if  lie  nii'^ht. 

in   the  absenci' of  any  special  contracl.  have   I n  liable   as  a  comiiii'U 

-ucli  a  -peiial  cofiiraci   for  the  i-.uriai^e  cif 


carrier,  there  was  in  thi-  c 


the  furniture  of  the  jilaintiff  as  to  exempt  him  from  the  liability  uhicli. 
ill  the  absence  of  a  special  contract,  mij^ht  pos-ibly  li.ive  been  implied. 
I'pon  the  first  iioiiit  the  plaintiff  relied  mainly  on  the  i-ase  of  I.ivcr 
.\lkali  (.'oinpany  V.  Johnson.  L.  K.  11  Kx.  :iH.s  (|,s71).  If  that  ca-e  werc^ 
identical  in  its  material  facts  with  the  pre-ent.    1    should    hold    m\-elf 


bound  liy  it  so  far  as  to  sav  that,  w  hether  a  common  car  rier 


ir  not  .['>  a 


II 


intents  and  purposes  the  defi-ndant  must  be  held  liable  ;i-  hasin ■:  under- 
taken a  business  iniposin<r  upon  him  the  same  liabilities  as  those  of  a 
common  carrier,  iiut  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  mode  of  de:)lin<r  adojited 
by  the  defendant  in  this  case,  differs  in  many  most  impoii.Uii  [laiticiilars 


en.  VIII.]  coxsTurcTioN  of  contracts. 


205 


Uiathc  had  cnfjiifiod  the  defoiulunt  foi-  the  romovul  of  hi« 
furniture,  "  you  [the  doltaduut]  undi'rt:ikiii<;n.sk  of  hreiik- 
nges  (if  any)  not  exceeding  £")  on  any  one  artirk'."    While 


fioin  tliiit  el  ilit'  (Icfcmliiiit  ill  I.ivcr  vlkuli  (Oiniiaiiy  v.  Joliiisoa,  la 
this  I'lisc.  tli<ni<r|i  it  is  foiiiitl  ••  tli.tt  IIk-  'l<'f«'iuliuit  has  for  several  years 
(•arrie<l  oil  n|Miii  liis  own  accomit  the  In.  less  or  einploymeiit  of  a  ear- 
ricr,  n'im)viii;r  ami  carryiiif;  l'"o(1s  aiiil  furuilaie  for  liiii'.  fop  all  iicrsous 
iiKliffi'ii'iilly  w  ho  applicil  to  liiiii."'  the  caM"  adds  that  he  coiidiicts  tliat 
ImsiiK'ss  uiioii  liTiii*  which  appear  on  the  card  annexed  to  the  ease. 
Ipoii  a  perusal  of  this  card  it  appear*  to  me  that  it  contains  terms  which. 
aiMi'd  to  the  other  facts  in  the  case,  in  relation  to  the  defcndaiil"s  m-din- 
ary  mode  of  doinji;  Imsiness.  iiejjative  any  inference  in  faxor  (»f  Ids  lieing 
a  common  carrier  wliich  niifjjht  otherwise  have  aii-en  from  the  ahove- 
meirii'iied  lindiiii;.  and  also  neiriHive  an\  iiilcrcn ■■•  that  he  dealt  upon 
such  tcrm«  as  tu  incur  tlie  liahiliiic- of  a  coniindii  i;irrier.  'I'lic  cai-d  is 
lieade(l  ••  S.  I).  IJaihvay  Kood- ami  Parcel  Ollice."  It  de<crilie>  the  de- 
fendant a-  s(de  aL;enl.  which  I  interpret  to  mean  of  the  S.  I).  Uaihvay 
roiiipaiiv.  It  speak- of  ••  furniture  sioii'd.  of  vaiw.  carts  and  horses  on 
hii'c."  iii'ithcr  of  w  hii'li  can  )»■  -aid  to  refer  to  the  piopei' )iusiiic-s  of  a 
4'ommoii  carrier.  It  lleii  coiiiaiiis  tlie<e  words:  ••  Laiijc  luck-up  vans 
for  reiMo\ini:  tiirniturc.  ;ilas-.  cliiua.  iVc.  hy  road  oi-  rail,  without  pack- 
iiiir."  which  i-  ipiilc  as  coii>i-tcnl  with  the  liiisiness  of  lettin;jf  out  such 
van-  on  hire  a-  with  an  uiidcrlakiii;;  to  use  such  vans  a-  a  carriei'  in  re- 
juo\  ini;  the  ;;(Mids  of  others.  'I'lien  at  the  foot  of  the  card  are  the  words : 
"Contracts  entered  into  for  removiii;;  furniture  t^  or  from  any  part  of 
till'  kinirdom.     Hstiinates  ;;-iven  fr-'i'.""     On  the  h     '   ..f  thi'  card  is  eii- 

;;ra\cd  a  >| imcii  of  one  of  the  vans  on  a  railway  1 1      k.     'I'lie  case  finds 

thai  the  com-e  of  hiisiness  js  for  an  inspection  of  the  luriiitnre  to  take 
jilace  hefore  any  contract  i>  made,  and  for  the  price  to  he  tixed  after  such 
inspection.  |{eadiii<;  the  whole  of  ihc  c.ird  lojfcther  with  the  facts 
fipuiid.  I  come  to  the  cimcln-ion  that  the  def>'iidant  diil  not  so  deal  with 
the  piililic  .1-  to  umlcrtake  in  carry  j^oods  jn  the  altsi'iice  of  an  a;;reement 
a-  to  the  teiiii-of  carria;xe.  'i'he  card  il-elf  iiiiisi.  I  think,  hi'  taken  as  a 
l)arl  of  the  dclendaiit's  neide  of  divilin;:.  and  the  sulistaiice  of  it  appear- 
to  III''  to  he.  not  that  he  will  carr>  at  all  ev>-nts.  lint  only  that  he  will 
<aiiy  if   hi-  c-iimates  mimI   terms  ai-e   .■lereeil  to.       In  di-cii--iii<r  these 

Ici  nis  many  ii  'mus  would  ha\t'  to  he  taken  iiiiu  a iint .  u-.  for  example. 

w  hciher  the  L;."id- arc  to  i;o  liy  road  or  rail,  w  le'l»»-r  tin-  \aii  wiis  to  lie 
under  till'  control  of  the  plaintiff  or  the  dci'eiidj.iar  -  driver,  whether  any 
other  person"-  ^^nods  are  in  he  alhiwed  to  trav:  !*•  the  same  \aii  or  not. 
for  the  ca-c  lines  lint  liiid  that  tli--  \aii  is  alwa>  -  ii-cil  lor  the  ijoods  nf  one 

per-oii.  and  mail}  oilier  mailer-.  -i^Hi  .1-  route    ,| d,  whciherin  van  or 

cart,  \e..  the  deci-ion  a-  to  w  ire-fciMWiii^hl  allcr  the  esijmiiic.  In  I.ivi'r 
Alkali  ( 'niiipany  V.  .lohnsnn.  the  f.j'r'f  (  hief  Itiron  say-^:  "No  doiihl.  if 

each  pariiciilar  voyai;'e  had  1 11  nude  under  a  sjieclal  contract  cniitainin^ 

only  the  siipiil  ilinii-  applicalile  lo  iliai  voy.i^c  the  I'a-e  would  ha\e  heeii 


■'1 


1^ 


20(5 


TIIK  CONTUACTS  Of  <  AKI!IKI{S.  [ciI.  vm. 


tlio  t'liniituiv  \vas  in  transit  it  was  hiinicd,  without  any  iicif- 
ligciico  on  the  part  of  tiic  defendant.  TIh'  jui'v  found  for 
the  i)laintiff,  llic  judjjjc  ri'st-rvinir  l^'avc  to  the  (h-fendanl  to 
move  to  enter  a  nonsuit.  A  ruh'  ///.s/ haviuL^  lieen  aeeord- 
inu'ly  obtained,  it  was  made  ahsolute  and  a  nonsuit  entei'ed 
\)\  the  Court  of  Kxt-henuer,  it  \n'\i\<x  there  held  that  the 
special  eontraet  limited  the  liability  of  the  defendant  to  lo>s 
i»v  hreakajre  or  l)v   his  ne'iTiucnee,  ami  excluded  anv  (lues- 


different."  Fn  tin'  [iresciii  imsc  I  iliink  lli;il  ilie\crv  innile  of  deiiliuir 
IMiiiitcil  (lilt  ill  tile  eanl.  ami  -laied  in  llie  ea-.'.  iieiT--aril\  iiiviii\i'<  a 
speeial  (■(iiiliaet  ill  each  ea~e  aniilieaide  In  I'acti  iuiinicy  oiilv.  ami  llial 
the  case  iif  I, iver  Alkali  (loiiipany  V.  .lip|mM>ii  i~  very  tli-tiiijiiii^lialpj"  on 
that  ^roiiiiii.  I  tliiiiU  the  cant  it-elf  \\a-  fair  iiH«»iee  to  the  wnild  Uiai  a 
special  eontraet  iiiiist  he  made  liefore  .iiiy  lialKliiy  In  earry  wniild  he  in- 
eiirreil.  and  tiiat  it  fnllnws  thai  anyone  haviii;;  >iieh  iiutiee  would  lie 
hound  to  stijiiilale  e\|n-e«ly  for  any  such  iiaUility  as  that  of  u  eoinnion 
oarrier.  hefore  lie  could  cliar;:e  ihe  defi  nd::  :i-  ii(i<<ii  any  ■^iieh  liatiililx . 
I'poii  the  second  point,  viz.:  uiielhei-.  sn|.^.n>iii;r  the  defendant  in  lie 
fjeiierally  carryiii,:;  on  the  hn-iiie-s  of  acointui'Oii  carrier,  or  carryiii;!  on  a 
biisincs<  so  a-<  to  he  ijeiierally  lial)le  as  a  eomiMion  carrier,  he  was  so  lia- 
ble in  till-  ia<e.  or  whether  he  hail  not  limited  hi-  liahilily  hy  reason  nf 
Ills  letter-  In  the  plaintiff  I  entirely  airri-i-  in  the  view  taken  hy  my 
brother  Hraiiiwell  in  the  cmiri  Ixdow.  The  words  "yon  iiiiiiertakin>; 
risk  of  hreaka;re."  thoHLrhio  an  aniniini  imniedi;.>dy  afte;  Aards  limited, 
soein  to  me  coiichi-ive  In  -how  ihal  the  relaiinnnf  enmiitoii  carrier  In 
the  owner  of  ;i;(mhIs  was  not  conienipialed  hy  tli.-  plaintiff  in  tie'  pariie- 
iilar  ca:-e.  whatever  iiii;rht  have  Ip.-cii  ilie  relatinii  helwecii  lie-  |ilaiiniff 
and  defendant  in  the  ahseiio- of  -ii  h  a  >lipiilalioii.  On  hmh  ;;roiinds  I 
am  of  upinion  that  our  judgment  slnnild  he  fnr  the  resp, indent. 

roekhiirn.  « '.  .1.:  I  enth'el,  a;;ree  in  the  view  taken  hy  the  rest  of  ihe 
court  that  this  was  a  special  coiilrai'l.  and  lli:it  therefore  the  liahiliiv  nf 
the  defendant,  as  a  cniiiinnii  cariii  r  i-oiild  not  arise.  |  wi-h  it  in  he 
clearly  iindei-iond  thai  I  cnnciii'  with  the  re-i  of  the  cniirl  :  Imf  if  it  iiad 
not  heen  -n  I  -hnlllil  ha\e  thnllixhl  ni\  -idf  honiiil  In  enter  into  the  ipies. 
tioii  wlieiher  Ihi' defeiidani  wa>  a  <oinninii  carrier  at  all.  and  I  wl-h  to 
say  that  i  lia^e.  ;tf|ei'  examiniii;:  all  the  aiiilmrities.  fnrnied  a  slmn;; 
opininii  that  that  is  a  i|ne-lioii  that  niiudit  to  he  -iihmilled  to  fnrilier 
eoii-ideralion.  It  is  not  necessary  to  dccicle  that  io  the  present  case,  and 
I  a;xiei;  with  Ihe  view  taken  hy  the  whidenf  the  cmirl  that  this  is  a 
special  contract. 

Hrett.J.:  I  di'-ire  to  say  that  I  ayfiee  with  ihe  rest  nf  ihe  court,  hnl  I 
also  a<^ri'e  with  lln-  view  of  the  Lord  « 'hief  .In-lice  that  there  wasnoevi- 
deiico  ill  this  ca-e  that  the  person  was  a  coniin<  n  carrier. 

trii<!":inenl  allirnied. 


(•II.  vm.J       CONSTKrCTIO.N  OK  CONTHACTS. 


207 


tioii  of  li;il)ility  as  a  «-()iniH()ii  carrier.  HKAM\vi:i,t-,  15.,  said: 
"  I  am  (if  opinion  that  this  riih>  iniist  he  made  ahsoIiil(<.  If 
iiothinir  more  had  hai)i)(MU'd  lliaii  that  I  lie  lioods  wcri! 
.scut  for.  I  think  th<'  (h'f<'n(hint  wouhl  ha\i'  made  him- 
self lial)h'  as  a  lommon  earrier.  \\\i\  that  was  not  the  «'ase, 
as  tiiere  wa.s  a  special  airn-emeiit  hetween  the  parties.  We 
nuist  h)oU  at  the  natni'eof  the  hiisini'ss  carried  on  hy  the 
defendant.  He  descrilies  himself  on  his  card  as  »  enterinjj^ 
into  contracts  for  renioviiiLr  furnitnrc  t(»  or  from  any  part  of 
the  Kinirdoni.'  His  i;-encial  mode  of  carrying:  on  l>usines.s 
was  iiy  contraci ,  and  in  this  instance  he  made  a  contract, 
for  \vhi(  h  we  must  look  to  the  two  letters  written.  In  these 
letters  he  limits  his  lial>ility  in  lespcct  of  lireakaiic  If  he 
were  a  common  carrier,  I  d<i  not  think  these  words  would 
limit  his  liability.  15ut  the  case  does  not  stand  on  the  com- 
mon law  of  carrier  and  cn-tonu'i'.  This  man  says;  '  I  will 
take  iToods  not  in  a  lit  condition  lo  ti'avcl  and  will  put  them 
in  a  condition  to  travel,"  which  is  not  the  ordinary  case  of 
carrier  and  customer.  Then  he  says  in  his  h-lter  that  his 
ti'rms  ai'e  '  £22  Ids.,  with  risk  of  Itreakairc  in  tran>it.' 
This  means  •>  I  will  take  on  me  risk  of  l»ii'akai>'e  in  transit.' 
If  he  WH're  a  connnon  carrier  he  would  undertake  not  only 
this  risk  l)nt  all  risks.  Hut  he  says  *  I  undi-rtake  for  one 
|)articular  risk.'  Why  do  not  the  <;eneral  rules  apply — ••  rj- 
jji't'ssio  iiuiitfi  rs(  i'.i-rli(sitt  (i//i'riits,"  and  ' xj/rifision  J'tict'f  c-s- 
stin'  f>n-ifi())i /  "  That  is  to  say,  the  defendant  stipulates  not 
to  he  lialtle  for  anythinif  else.  No  douht  he  would  l)i'  liai»le 
for  failure  in  the  use  of  (udinary  skill,  liecaus(>  ordii.ai'V 
care  i>  not  excludeil.  The  '  'Iter  proceeds  to  say,  '  foi'  the 
amount  I  herein  .j..citied.'  These  words  do  not  alter  the 
case  as  lo  i|nality,  Imt  as  to  amount,  'i'he  memorandum 
siirned  l»y  (he  plaintiff  says,  »  I  herchy  airree  to  pay 
£'J'2  lOs.,  you  undcrtakinir  the  risk  of  i>reakap's  ( if  ariv) 
not  exceeding:  t'"»  on  any  one  article,"  the  elTect  of  which 
is  that  he  is  lial)le  f(M'  !)reakair»'  and  nothinu;  elsi',  and  only  for 
that  to  the  extent  of  i  .  I  think  thai  justice  is  done  hy 
this  view  of  th<'  case.     Very   likely  neither  |)arty   had  any 


.<  ii 


20S 


THE  CONTUACTS  OF  CARHIKUS. 


[cm.  vim. 


'■Vil 


!■■  i\ 


ii '  '<  ■■'+ 


i^ 


notion  of  liability  us  a  conunon  carrier.  Tiu'  tlcfcndant 
has  an  aj;roeni<Mit  stiitiiijj;  what  the  terms  of  the  carriair*'  an-, 
luul  it  is  for  the  phiintiff  to  show  that  he  is  hahh'  under 
that  agreement,  not  that  tlie  eominon  hiw  puts  a  liability  on 
him."  Pollock,  H.  :  "  I  also  think  that  the  rule  sliouhl  be 
made  al)solute.  The  «iui'stion  is  of  the  propter  eonsiiur- 
tion  to  be  i;iven  to  a  written  contract.  If  the  defendant  is  .1 
common  cari"iei' he  is  not  the  less  liable  because  he  carries 
under  a  special  contract.'^  Hut  before  we  consider  the  posi- 
tion of  tile  defendant  we  must  look  at  the  special  contract. 
This  is  not  the  <'ase  of  a  pci'son  admitted  to  ln'  a  connnon 
carrier  and  his  liul)iiity  limited  by  a  special  contiact.  The 
defendant  transpoits  furnitur(>,  china,  jxlass,  etc.,  and  ddc^ 
much  beyond  the  duties  of  a  common  (-arrier,  such  as  pack- 
ing:, etc.  I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  tlu- terms  (if  tile  con- 
tract. What  may  faiily  have  been  intt'iidcd  by  the  parties 
was  that  the  defendant  was  to  be  liable  for  lu'cakaii'e  oidy, 
and  that  to  a  limited  extent.  I  think  our  judirnient  should 
beforthe  defendant."  'i'lie  case  beinj;  subse(|ueiitl\  car- 
ried to  the  Court  of  Kx<lie(|uer  Chamlicr,  the  judirnient  of 
tlu'  lower  court  was,  after  lenuthy  and  elaltoiale  arirumeiils 
on  both  sidles,  unanimously  aflirnied. 

§  l.")2.  Ojiiiiliiii  of  Jilijiloir,  ('.  »/.,  an  the  ^{pjiliiuiflon  of 
the  Mdjliii. —  III  (iatii-  i\  Tin't'/f,^''  decided  by  the  Supreme 
♦ludicial  Court  of  Massachusetts  in  LSiIt,  it  was  held  tliat 
the  owner  of  a  ship  employed  in  the  transportation  of  mer- 
chandise for  persons  irciierally,  who  had  airreedto  transpoii 
certain  iroods  without  makinir  any  special  slipuiation  as  to 
his  lialtility,  did  not  eiilarire  his  liability  by  .-.iirniiii:-  without 
i\ny  new  consideration  a  bill  of  ladin/x  in  which  lie  stipu- 
hited  that  the  jroods  should  Ite  delivered,  the  "danirers  of 
the  seas  only  exccpte<l,"  so  as  to  be  liable  f(»r  a  loss  arisinir 
from  the  act  of  a  public  enemy,  because  the  (piestion  here 
in  dispute  has  been  raised  in  but  three  cases  in  iliis  coun- 
try, the  decisions  in  which  are  coiillictinir,  and  bciaiise  i(   is 

"  Liver  AlkiiM  Ciniiiciiiy  v.  .Inliii<uii.  L.  I{.  !i  K\.  Ifiis  (^ls7i). 
'"■  ft  Allf'ii.  'Jii'.i. 


CH.  VIII.]  CONSTRUCTION  OF  CONTRACTS. 


800 


one  of  great  importance  in  the  constnu'tion  of  contractu 
limiting  tlie  liahilities  of  common  carriers,  it  may  be  in 
place  to  quote  at  some  length  from  the  opinion  of  the  chief 
justice  in  the  last  case  :  "  Wc  are  to  determine  in  the  Hrst 
place,"  said  Uioklow,  C.  J.,  "whether  the  defendants  arc 
shut  out  from  availing  themselves  of  the  exception  to  the 
liahilities  of  common  carriers  imposed  by  law  for  loss  of 
iroods  intrusted  to  them  caused  bv  imblic  enemies.  If  tiiev 
are  to  be  excluded  from  the  benefit  of  this  exception,  it 
must  l)e,  as  has  been  already  said,  on  the  ground  that  in  the 
bill  of  ladnig  they  have  inserted  a  spi-cial  exception,  ex- 
empting themselves  from  liability  for  losses  happening  by 
dangers  of  the  sea,  antl  can  not  now  excust^  themselves  for 
the  non-performance  of  their  contract  by  the  happening  of 
events  which  are  not  end)raced  within  the  terms  of  this  ex- 
emption. In  oth;.'r  words,  the  argument  is  that  an  ex[)ress 
exception  excludes  all  implied  exceptions.  The  maxim  ('.»•- 
pressio  nniufiest  exclusio  alteriun  is  a  cardinal  rule  of  expo- 
sition, of  familiar  application,  founded  in  good  sense  and 
sound  reason,  and  affording  an  appropriate  method  of 
arriving  at  the  presumed  intent  of  parties  to  deeds  and  in- 
struments in  which  it  is  not  fully  expresseil.  Hut,  as  has 
boon  justly  observed  by  a  learned  writer,  great  <'aution  is 
requisite;  in  applying  the  rule,  lest  it  may  be  usi-d  for  the 
purpos(!  of  defeating  instead  of  subserving  the  real  intent 
of  parties."'  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  where  a  party  cx- 
l)ressly  covenants  that  he  will  do  a  certain  act,  he  can  not 
(jualify  or  restrict  the  covenant  so  as  to  excuse  its  non-per- 
formance by  excejUions  or  limitations  arising  from  inq)lica- 
tion  oidy.  In  such  cases  the  inference  is  reasonable  that  if 
the  parti(!s  did  not  mean  that  the  covenant  should  be  abso- 
lute tlic^y  would  have  expressed  the  limitation  which  they 
intended  to  put  upon  it.  Thus,  where  there  is  a  covenant 
to  I'cpair  in  a  lease,  no  implied  contract  to  make  repairs  can 
be  raised  ;  nor  can  the  performance  of  such  a  covenant  be 
excused  by  the  hapi)ening  of  events  for  which  no  provision 
'•  Broonrii  Legal  Maxims,  oOG. 

u 


I'M 


■1 


m 


-:'>■ 


m' 


i-ni 


210 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAKIUER8. 


[CH.  viir. 


wjis  iiisortotl.     But  the  exclusion  of  all   iinplirations  must 
bo  continod  to  tlio  sanio  class  or  kind  of  acts  or  stipulations 
us  that  to  which  the  express  agreement  or  covenant  relates. 
It  can  not  he  extended  so  as  to  embrace  matters  concernin*: 
which  the   parties  have   nnido    no    stipulations.     In    other 
words,  it  can  not  bo  said  that  a  party  is  deprived  of  the 
benefit  of  all  implied  covenants  in  relation  to  the  subject- 
niattor  of  a  contract,  because  he  has.  entered  into  express 
stipulations  concerninjj  certain  specific  incidents  or  particu- 
hirs  connected  with  or  growing  out  of  the  contract.     For 
e.\ample,  an  express  covenant  in  a  lease  b}'  a  tenant  to  re- 
pair would  in  no  way  affect  the  im|)lied  covenant  not  to 
commit  strip  or  waste  on  the  premises.     So  an  agreement 
in  a  charter  party  that  the  shipper  should  bear  a  loss  which 
might  arise  from  an  inherent  vice  of  the  article  shipped, 
would  not  exempt  the  carrier  from  liability  for  an  injury 
resulting  from  the  negligence  of  the  master  or  sailors.    The 
reason  is  that  in  such  cases  the  agreement  exjiressed  is  not 
connected  with  and  bears  no  necessary  or  direct  rehition  to 
that  which  is  implied,  and  hence  no  just  inference  can  be  drawn 
that  the  parties  intended  by  inserting  one  stii)ulation  to  ex- 
elude  all  other  implied  obligations  on  distinct  and  independ- 
ent nmtters.     The  only  safe  mode  of  applying  the  rule  is  to 
ascertain  whether  it  can  fairly  be  presumed  from  that  which 
is  expressly  stipulated  that  the  matter  sought  to  be  excluded 
was  prestMit  to  the  minds  of  the  parties  when  the  agreement 
was   entered   into.     The   exclusion   can  reasonably  extend 
no   further  than  to  shut  out  all    implied  agreements  and 
stijjulations    of    the   same   nature   or    relating    to  similar 
matters.     Thus,  if  a  party  take  an  express  warranty  of  an 
article  from  a  vendor,  it  is  rea.>;onablc  to  suppose  that  the 
subjiH't  nnitter  of  warranty  was  in  his  mind  at  the  time  of 
the  sale,  and  that  he  caused  to  be  inserted  in  the  contract  a 
promise  concerning  the   nature  and  quality  of  the  articles 
sufficiently   comprehensive  to   include  all   on   that    subject 
which  the  parties  intended  should  form  part  of  the  bargain. 
But  if  the  contract  contained  no  warranty  at  all,  but  con- 


CH.  VIII.]  CON8TKUCTION  OF  CONTRACTS. 


211 


slstcd  of  stipuliitioiis  <m  otiior  matttM's,  the  wurninty  im- 
plied hy  law,  if  Jiuy,  would  still  form  part  of  the  contract, 
and  an  action  for  a  breach  of  it  could  l)e  maintained.  In- 
deed it  may  l)o  said  generally  that  the  maxim  pxpressntn 
Jacit  ccsHiire  tavituni  is  never  to  he  applied  in  the  construc- 
tion of  contracts  jn'remptorily  and  ai)s()lutely,  so  as  to  ex- 
clude from  the  contract  everything  not  cmliraced  in  the 
stipulations  of  the  parlies.  Its  legitimate  and  proper  use  is 
to  shut  out  implied  agreements  on  the  same  or  similar  sul)- 
jects  as  those  concerning  which  the  contract  speaks  ;  even 
such  exclusion  should  he  extended  only  so  far  as  to  subserve 
the  plain  intent  of  the  parties.  If  these  views  are  correct, 
the  interpretation  of  the  contract  iji  the  present  case  is  free 
from  all  difficulty.  Giving  full  effect  to  the  clause  in  the 
bill  of  lading  exempting  the  defendants  from  lial)ilty  for 
losses  occasioned  by  perils  of  the  sea,  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  therein'  assumed  all  losses  whi(rh  might  arise  from 
the  capture  of  the  ship  and  seizure  of  the  cargo  by  public 
enemies.  The  two  causes  of  loss  are  entirely  distinct  nnd 
diverse,  an<l  have  no  necessary  connection  with  or  relation 
to  each  other.  They  belong  to  entirely  different  kinds  or 
classes  of  risks.  No  inference  can  l)e  reasonably  drawn 
from  the  exemption  of  the  carrier  by  a  special  agreement 
front  ou(^  class  or  kind,  that  it  wiis  the  intention  of  the  par- 
tics  that  he  should  assume  the  other  for  which  the  law 
would  not  hold  him  lial)l(>,  if  there  had  been  no  exception 
inserted  in  the  contract  ;  or  in  other  words  that  a  stipula- 
tion exempting  the  carrier  from  lial)ility  for  the  conse- 
<|uences  of  perils  of  the  sea  carries  with  it  by  implication 
an  agreement  to  assume  the  distinct  and  independent  risk 
of  a  seizure  or  capture.  Such  an  inference  seems  to  us  not 
only  to  be  imreasonal)le  and  illogical,  but  to  I)e  in  direct 
violation  of  the  i>lain  intention  of  the  parties.  The  object 
of  the  exception  was  not  to  enlarge  the  carrier';  lial)ility. 
On  the  contrary  the  purpose  was  to  put  an  additional  re- 
striction on  the  I'isks  \vhi«'h  they  were  contenteil  to  l)ear. 
Tiie  spwcial  exception  was  not  conliued  to  acts  of  (Jod.     If 


919 


TlIK  CONTSIACTS  OF  CAKIMKUS. 


[cii.  vr»i. 


i'  A 


it  had  been,  llu'  arfjiimcnt  wduld  \v.i\v,  liad  jrrcat  force  that 
the  insertion  of  an  exception,  wlii(  li  the  law  would  imply 
in  the  alisonce  of  any  stipulation,  indicateti  the  int(>ntionon 
the  part  of  the  carriers  to  exclude  this  class  of  risks  and 
to  assume  all  others.  It  woidd  he  diflicult  to  assi«iii  any 
reason  for  makinir  a  special  exception  of  risks  which  thft 
law  did  not  impose.  Hut  the  exemption  for  which  the  de- 
fendants stipulated  include(l  other  risks  than  those  coin- 
prehemh'd  within  the  <-lass  denominatetl  as  the  acts  of  (iod. 
J'erils  of  the  seas  emi)racc  not  only  inevitaltle  ciih'nts 
arisinii'  from  tempests.  Hoods,  earth(|uakes  and  other  dan- 
p-rs  happi'ninu:  without  the  intervention  of  man,  hut  .mIso 
those  caused  hy  collisions,  tires,  pirates  and  other  occur- 
rences, to  the  happeninir  of  which  human  a^^ency  directly 
(•ontril>utes.  It  was  to  escape  liahility  for  losses  occasioned 
by  risks  of  the  latter  character  that  the  special  excep- 
tion was  i'.'.serted  in  the  hill  of  ladini::.  It  was  dcsiirnc(|  to 
confine  the  risk  for  which  the  defendants  were  to  he  liable 
within  narrower  limits  th.'in  those  athxcd  to  the  contract  of 
affreijrhtment  by  the  <>-eneral  rules  of  law.  It  woidd  be  u 
jjross  perversion  of  the  ph'.in  intent  of  the  parties  to  hold 
tiuit  by  sui'h  a  restriction  the  liability  of  tin;  carriers  was 
increased,  and  the  burden  of  additional  risks  thereby  as- 
sumed by  them  for  which  in  the  absence!  of  any  stipulation 
they  would  he  exempted  by  Iciral  implication.  It  follows 
from  this  view  of  the  contract  of  afficiixhtment  into  which 
the  parties  entered,  that  the  doctrine,  well  established  and 
familiar,  that  a  party  who  takes  on  himself  a  duty  or  charire 
is  bound  to  fulfil  or  t)ei-form  it,  and  cannot  alle<re  any  acci- 
dent or  necessity,  however  inevitable  or  overwhclminur,  as 
an  excuse  for  a  failure  to  keep  his  .stipulations,  can  not  be 
applied  in  the  present  ease,  as  is  urjic*!  l)y  the  c(»unsel  for 
the  plaintiffs,  so  as  to  eidar^^e  the  liability  of  the  defend- 
ants us  carriers  at  common  law.  If  we  are  ri»rht  ilk  the  ex- 
position we  have  j;ivon  to  \hv.  stipulatitms  of  the  parties, 
there  was  no  a<;reejnent,  either  express  or  im])lied,  that  tho 
defendants  should  undertake  anv  of  the  risks  from  which 


i  *^ 

,                  ■) 

i    cW. 

,l  i 

11 

J 

1 

At      ■           !■« 

Cil.   VIII.]  CONNTKUCTION  OF  C()NTKA(T8. 


213 


common  curriers  »vv.  usually  exempted,  l>iit  on  the  contrury 
tin-  effect  of  tlie  clause  in  the  hill  of  ladiu-;  exct'plinj^  poril.s 
of  the  .sea  from  the  risks  assumed  hy  the  defendants  was  to 
extend  this  leyal  exempt i»)n,  and  to  relieve  the  defendants 
from  certain  risks  for  which  they  would  have  been  liable 
hut  for  this  special  stipulation  in  the  contract  of  shipniont. 
'I'iie  «'ases  cited  by  the  plaintiffs'  counsel  do  not  support  his 
aru;ument.  None  of  them  art'  adjmlications  on  the  liability 
<»f  connnon  carriers,  'riiey  all  relate  to  special  charter 
parties  or  contracts  of  affrei«rhtment  for  the  carriajfo  of 
floods  in  vessels  in  which  the  ship  owner  let  his  ship  for  a 
voyaijc  (»r  a<rreetl  to  carry  a  specific  cari;o,  and  did  not  hold 
him>clf  out  to  carry  m«'rchamlise  for  persons  irenerally.  In 
such  cases  the  shipowner  can  not  be  rcjrarded  as  a  common 
carrier,  lie  is  not  subject  to  tiie  risks  (U' entitled  to  the  ex- 
emptions which  the  law  altaclu's  to  persons  acting  in  that 
capacity.  His  liability  nnist  depend  entirely  on  the  special 
agreement  for  the  transportation  of  merchandise  into  which 
he  has  entered.  If  he  has  auiccd  absolutely  to  carry  it  to 
a  i)articular  place,  he  can  not  set  up  as  a  sulKcient  reason 
for  the  non-pei'formance  of  his  contract  any  special  ground 
of  exemption  for  which  he  did  not  stipulate.  The  precise 
(juestion  which  we  have  lieen  considering  seems  not  to  have 
been  settled  in  tlu  Kngli>h  courts.  It  was  raised  but  not 
determined   in  the  cise  of  Jicvcr  c.  Tumhiison.^''     It  is  not 


likelv   to  arise   air:iii»   there,   Iteeause   the   form   o 


f  bill 


s  oi 


lading  now  usually  adopted  in  England  contains  an  expre.s.s 
exception,  exc-mpting  shipowners  from  liability  for  losses 
caused  by  the  act  of  (Jod  and  the  public  enemy,  as  well  as 
from  many  other  risks  commonly  embraced  within  the  gen- 
eral description  of  jxiils  of  the  seas.  Nor  has  the  (juestion 
heretofore  come  uj)  for  express  adjudication  in  the  courts  in 


th 


is  country. 


In    Williiunx  v.    Grant  "*    it  was   said   that 


common  carriers  are  not  liable  for  los.se.s  by  the  act  of  (iod 
whether  the  bill  of  lading  contains  any'exception  of  them 

^^  Ante,  §  151. 

"  I  Coun.ts:  (1810). 


f  i 


'<3 


n 


214 


TlIK  CONTRAfTS  OK  rAKUIKllS. 


[ciI.  VIII. 


! 


Ill 


I 

il 

li 


or  not  ;  and  the  siunc  doctrine  wiih  ro-asscrtcd  in  CroMfii/  v. 
Fitch ?'^  Tlu'sc  dicla  seccnj  to  accord  with  the  views  which 
we  have  taken  ()f  the  proix-r  eff<'ct  to  be  «jiven  to  a  special 
exception  of  i)articnh»r  risks  in  \\w  hill  of  ladin«r.  Cer- 
tainly no  authority  has  l»e«'n  citccl  and  none  we  Itelicve  can 
he  found  to  sustain  the  |>roposition  urjred  in  hehalf  of  the 
plaintiffs,  that  an  exception  of  perils  of  the  seas  of  itself 
oj)erates  to  render  a  connnon  carrici'  liable  foi-  other  risks  of 
a  different  character  from  which  he  would  otherwise  l»e  e\- 
eniptt'd  hy  the  ^ri-ncral  ride  of  law,  or  in  other  words  that  it 
is  equivalent  to  a  distinct  stipulali<»n  hy  the  cari'ier  to  as- 
sume the  risk  of  loss  caused  l»y  a  public  enemy.  In  th(! 
absence  of  any  bii  Injr  authority  wt^  can  nctt  <rive  our  sanc- 
tion to  a  conclusion  which  is  not  warranted  by  any  just  ride 
of  exposition,  and  which  seems  to  be  contrary  to  the  plain 
intention  of  the  pai1i«'s  to  the  conli'acl.  The  result  is  that 
the  defendants  are  not  liable  for  a  loss  of  tlu>  property  in- 
trusted to  theuj,  cause<l  cither  by  public  enemies  or  perils 
of  the  sea.  From  the  former  they  are  exempted  l»y  the 
rule  of  the  connnon  law:  from  the  latter  by  force  of  tlu* 
special  exception  inserted  in  the  bill  of  hulin<;." 

§  Ifj-'i.  Tfvmx  in  Insurance  J'ofirics  and  /ii//s  nf  Ladinff 
Conxfnifd  J)iff'ci'i'n/!'/. —  Many  of  the  words  and  phrases, 
wljose  lc<ral  nieaniuirs  arc  {riven  in  the  succeeding;  sections 
of  this  chapter,  are  also  to  be  found  in  policies  of  ma- 
rine insurance.  Hut  it  is  to  be  observed  that  words  of  ex- 
emption contained  in  bills  of  ladini;  are  uxnrv.  strictly  con- 
strued than  similar  terms  in  the  law  of  insurance.  The 
rules  whi<'h  n'jrulate  losses  under  policies  of  insurance  differ 
wholly  from  tlutse  which  irovern  in  the  case  of  common  car- 
riers. Ka<'h  contract  has  its  own  ])cculiarities  and  princi- 
ples of  interpretation,  and  the  interpretation  "riven  in  one 
case  is  not  applical)le  and  can  not  be  followed  in  the  other.'''* 
A  strikinjr  examph»  of  this  distinction  is  seen  in  the  law  of 

»  12  Conn.  410  (IKJS). 

*  McArthur  v.  Sears.  21  Wi-ml.  109  (IH.in) ;  King  v.  Sht'plnM«l.  :{  Stoir, 
MU  (IS  14). 


CII.  VIII.]  rOXSTIllJCTION  OF  CONTRA(T8. 


Sift 


iiisuniiK'i!,  when;  when  ii  lo.s^  has  arisoii  fnuii  ii  cauno  hi- 
siirt'd  aj;uiiiMt,  tlie  uiuU'rwritiT  is  rcspoiisihh*,  ahhouirh  (ho 
inastcr  did  not  uho  duo  care  to  avoid  it ;  the  contrary  being 
tlie  rule  in  tiu3  contracts  of  common  carriers.'"  "  A  policy 
of  insnrance,"  says  Wii.lks,  .I.,-'''  "  is  an  al>solnle  contract 
to  indcnmify  for  loss  l)y  perils  of  the  sea,  and  it  is  (»nly 
necessary  to  svv,  whetlu'r  the  loss  comes  within  the  terms  of 
tlu'  contract  and  is  caused  hy  jiorils  of  the  sea;  tin*  fact 
that  the  loss  is  partly  caused  l>y  thinjjrs  not  distinctly  perils 
of  the  sea  does  not  prevent  its  comin«:  withinjhe  contract. 
In  the  <'ase  of  a  hill  of  lading  it  is  different,  hecause  there 
the  contract  is  to  carry  with  reasonable  care  unh-ss  pre- 
vente(|  hy  the  excepted  perils.  If  the  floods  are  not  car- 
ried with  reasonable  care  and  are  conse(|uently  lost  hy 
perils  of  the  sea,  it  hecoincs  necessary  to  reconcile  the  two 
parts  of  the  instrument,  and  this  is  done  hy  holding  that  if 
i\u'  loss  thr«)u;rh  pei'ils  of  the  sea  is  caused  hy  the  previous 
default  of  the  shipowner  he  is  liable  for  this  breach  of  his 
covenant."  In  77/c  J'Wcihm,'^  it  was  said  by  one  of  the 
judges.  Sir  JosKi'ii  Naimkii  :  "The  words  in  the  bills  of  lading 
'  danjrers  of  the  seas  '  nmst  of  course  be  taken  in  the  Bcnse 
in  which  i\wy  are  used  in  a  policy  of  insnrance.  It  is  the 
settled  rule  of  the  law  of  insurance  n<)t  to  go  into  dis- 
tinct causes  but  to  look  exclusively  to  the  immediate  and 
proximate  cause  of  the  loss.  In  the  present  case  the  re- 
mote causes  are  not  only  <listinct  from  the  proximate  cause, 
but  they  are  for  the  most  part  unconnected  with  dangers 
of  the  seas."  In  T/te  C'/i(iHva,^*  Sir  Uoukiit  I'mii.i.imokk, 
a  distinguished  admiralty  juilge,  refers  to  the  error  con- 
tained in  this  I'xtract  in  this  language:  "The  oidy  (piestion 
in  this  «'ase  is  whether  damage  resulting  from  the  barratrous 
act  <tf  the  crew  in  boring  holes  in  the  ship's  sides  falls  un- 


,Jt'; 


V^ 


s'  (it'iifial  Milt.  III".  To.  V.  SluTWOotl.  14  How.  W'tl    (1S.V2);  lliizsiril  v. 
Ni-w  i;ii;r|iiml  Mm.  Ins.  Co..  s  IVt.  m7  (ISiJi). 
'-'(iiill  V.  Iron  .Screw  Co..  I..  J{.  1  ('.  P.  CIK>  (ISlKJ). 
«'  I..  It.  :»  I".  <•.  .V.t4.  •_»»  I..  T.  (X.  S.)  J.Vi  (1S71). 
"  I..  K.  I  A.lm.  4 10.  -Ja  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  S:<!i.  44  L.  .F.  Adm.  17  (1875). 


•■;  .1 


II 


816 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAKRIEHS. 


[ciI.  VIII. 


dor  tho  cxt'cption  of  '  daiifjors  of  the  seas  '  in  tho  hills  of 
ladinj;.  Tho  learned  jud<;e  of  the  county  court  has  conio 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  does,  foundinjj:  his  opinion  upon  a 
presumed  analo<j;y  l)otv','eon  cases  of  policies  of  insurance 
and  liases  depending  upon  contracts  contained  in  hills  of 
ladinj;.  This  analogy  is  in  my  judgment  fallacious.  In 
(picstions  arising  on  excei)tions  introduced  into  contracts  of 
affreightment,  the  court  is  hound  to  look  to  the  real,  and  not 
merely  jus  in  cases  of  marine  insuran«'e,  to  the  jiroxiniato 
cause  of  the  loss.  The  only  authority  cited  to  the  contrary 
has  heen  a  dictum  in  The  Freedom.  •  *  •  This  divfuvi 
was  in  no  way  nei^essary  to  the  decision  of  the  case  hcfore 
their  lordships,  and  it  appears  to  ine  that  it  was  an  erroneous 
dictum  that  must  have  found  it*  wav  throusrh  inadvertence 
into  their  lordships'  judgment." 

§  154.  [ntevpretationof  Ho>7/,<»  and  Phrcxes  in  Covfract.i. 
—  In  tho  remai'.iing  sections  hut  one  of  this  chapter  the  in- 
terpretation of  particular  words  and  phrases  to  l»e  found  in 
tho  contracts  of  carriers  limiting  their  common  law  liahilitics 
is  considered.  Those  a'"e  given  ali)hal.eiically  and  witli  cross 
refeiimces  so  as  to  he  easily  referred  to,  and  are  arranged 
":!:ch  in  the  form  of  a  digest.  Considering  that  fjuestions 
of  construction  of  tho  t«'rms  of  contracts  are  constantly 
hefore  the  courts,  and  that  no  ])revious  treatise  on  Carriers 
has  devoted  any  space  to  the  suhjects  of  the  following  sec- 
tions, it  is  thought  that  this  chapter  may  not  he  without 
real  value. 

§  1. ').').  ^*  Accidental  Delnt/^.'' — A  railroad  con1pan^  was 
a  eonunon  carrier  of  passengers  and  freight,  which  were 
transported  part  of  the  way  on  a  line  of  steamhoats.  The 
hoat  whi(^h  usually  made  the  connection  with  the  road  hav- 
ing hen  taken  off  for  nocessarv  repairs,  a  small  one  was 
used,  which  not  hciiig  ahio  to  carry  all  the  freight  hrought, 
j)art  of  it  was  left  in  the  depot  and  there  accidentally 
hurned  hefore  it  could  ho  forwarded.  This  was  held  to  he 
an  "  accidental  delay  "  within  a  clause  in  a  hill  of  lading 
that   the  carriers  should  not  ho  liahlo  "  for  any   i:ijury  to 


f- !  >*!v«4i;uw^,Mirj(4iy w<  «^rtiMn 


CII.  VIII.]  CON8TKUCTION  OF  CONTUACTS. 


217 


fieijrlit  ;irisiii<jj  from  the  weatluT  or  iicciilcntal  (ii'lays."  ^'' 

§  l'>»».  ^^^Iffreen.'' — "  Tlu-re  l)L'iii<i^  made  wome  (pu'siioii 
whether  the  indorsement  on  the  ticket  »  the  person  aceept- 
iiijj  this  free  ticket  assumes  all  risks,  etc.,  and  expn^ssly 
ajrH'^'"**  etc.,'  is  a  contract  on  the  part  of  the  passeiij^er  with 
tiie  company,  it  s»'ems  necessary  to  say  that  th(^  word 
'agreed'  means  the  concurrence  of  two  parties."*"  The 
words  in  a  receipt  "  it  is  mutually  ajjreed  "  have  no  <*ffect 
in  hiiidin^  a  shipper  to  terms  <'ontained  in  it  of  which  ho  i.s 
ijrnorant.-'' 

§  l.'')7.  "-All  Unity — An  a<;reement  to  carry  "  all  rail" 
must  he  stiictly  followed,  or  the  deviation  will  forfeit  the 
exception  in  the  contract,  as  if  the  "roods  an;  <'arried  hy 
sea'-'*  or  hy  any  other  mode,  evi'ii  for  a  f«>w  miles.'-'  Hut  ii 
necessary  crossing  of  ferries  is  permissible  under  tlmso 
words.*' 

§  l.')'S.  "yl/7/cA'." —  In  accordance  with  the  ml"  hereto- 
fore stated  that  a  notice  uiven  Ity  a  carrier  to  limit  his  re- 
sixHisilijlily  for  goods  lost  must  l»e  strictly  construed  against 
liim,  su<h  a  notice,  specifying  that  he  will  not  he  liable 
for  a  greater  amount  than  $100  on  any  "article,"  con- 
tained in  a  printed  receipt  given  for  a  trunk,  is  not  con- 
strued as  restricting  the  liability  for  the  entire  contents  of 
the  trunk  to  $100,  but  as  limiting  his  liability  for  each  one 
of  the  articles  c*)ntaine<|  in  it."  A  trunk,  however,  is  gene- 
rally used  to  carry  a  collection  <tf  diflereiit  articles,  and  the 
reason  for  this  ruling  c(»uld  hardly  apply  to  the  case  of  i\ 
box  or  pa  'age.  Thus  in  \Vi-(zpH  v.  lUiiHinovc;^'  the  decri.s- 
ion    was    different.       There    the    defendant     company     re- 

"  I-:i\vr.'iiii'  V.  XfW  York  itc  U.  Co..  M  Coiui.  (IH  (ISO'.t  .  Set'  im  (o 
tlio  cffcrl  of  delays  (()(/!•.  Cap.  VH.  j  U.'i.  W  .vci/. 

«(ioiil.|.  . I.,  ill  Wells  V.  Nru   York  Cfiit.   J{.  «'o..li   \.  Y.  isl    (_1S(J2). 

-'^  Mosher  V.  Sonlheni  Kxpres-  Co..  lis  lia.  :i7  (isds). 

*  lloslwhk  v.  Ilaliimoie  itc  K.  Co..  ».'.  N.  Y.  712  (IS7I). 

"  Mav'liee  V.  Cam.len  I'ic.  1{.  Co..  I.'i  N.  Y.  51 »  (IS7I). 

••'  .Majilu'c  V.  CatniliMi  i!ie.    {.  Co..  yupriK  and  see  Cu|).  VH.  §   \'M). 

»■  r.arle  V.  Cadmus,  2  :.>aly,  2;{7  ^lS(i7);  llo|(kiiM  v.  \Vi  stuoU,  0 
JUalclif.  Ct   (IS(;H). 

•«.M  N.  Y.  t'>0  (lS7.t)- 


•■it 

.1    J^    IT  J 


V, 


218 


THE  COXTUACTS  OF  CAKRIKRS.  [cif.  VIII. 


il 


it 


1  •■ 

3    ^ 


(^eivcd  Jit  Now  York  for  Iransportiition  to  plaintiffs  at  St. 
Louis,  a  packajxo  contaliiiujjr  throe  jrross  or  cusos  of  "  Slial- 
lonl)('r<,'t'r's  pills,"  worth  $113.50  ))('r  jjross.  The  receipt 
or  bill  of  la(liii<j:  eonlaine*!  a  clause  that  the  liolder  should 
not  demand  more  than  $')()  for  any  loss  or  damaire,  "  at 
Avhich  the  artivic  foirin'tlcd  is  valued,  and  whieli  shall  consti- 
tute tiie  limit  of  the  liahility  of  the  company."  The  thi'et^ 
cases  were  eacii  separately  addressed  to  plaintiffs  and  wer»^ 
then  wrapped  up  with  a  proper  cover  in  a  sin<rle  piiekaire  simi- 
larly adilressed.  Only  one  of  the  cases  reached  the  plaintiffs. 
An  action  was  hroujrht  to  recovei*  for  the  loss,  and  it  was 
held  that  "  the  artich'  forwardctl  '"  was  the  sinirle  packaire, 
and  that  jjlaintiffs  weriMiot  entitled  to  recover  $.'»()  upon  each 
of  the  missin;f  cases;  the  court  sayinir  that  if  each  of  the 
three  boxes  jiad  c(»ntained  a  different  sort  of  thin<;andthe 
defendant  had  known  of  this  the  case  would  have  leeu 
altered.  Under  an  a;j:reement  exonoratin^  a  carrier  \.  ,.\\ 
liability  for  more  than  a  cei-tain  amount  upon  a  "  sin<;le 
j)acka<xe,"  each  packa;.re  ainonir  a  numlier  inclosed  in  a  box, 
which  the  carrier  knows  to  contain  such  pa<'kai;es,  is  to  l»e 
rejrarded  as  an  independent  packai^e."'  The  word  "  pack- 
a<re "  is  delined  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Alal)ama  as 
a  small  parcel  or  liundle  whose  appearance  <jrives  no  ade- 
(piate  information  of  its  contents.  A  hoirshead  of  tol)acco 
or  a  bale  of  cotton  would  not  come  within  the  tei'm."  In  a 
very  recent  ease  in  Illinois  three  bales  of  furs  were  deliv- 
ered to  an  express  eompanv  foi"  transportation,  the  receipt 
•riven  by  the  company  limitinir  its  lial)ility  to  $")0  for  any 
|(»ss  or  damajie  to  any  "  box,  packajre  or  thin^f,"  unless  \\h\ 
just  and  true  value  thereof  was  therein  stated.  It  was  h»  Id 
that  the  shipper,  escn  thouLdi  no  discht^ure  of  the  value 
had  been  iriven,  was  entitle<l  to  recover  $.')()  on  each  of  the 
three  bales. •"•'' 

••"  \1>m\  v.  S|.;ml(liiij;.  r>  B-.w.  \V.\T>  (IK5!i).  mik]  «•.'  W>  Id  v.  Pickfunl.  H 


II.  Jk  \\.  in  (isil 


M  SoiUhcni  Kxprcss  Cm.  v.  Cnx.k.  W  .\l;i.  lOS  (1K7(»). 

ai  IJoskowitz  V.  A.laiii-^  Kximc-s  Co..  !»  Cent.  L.  .1.  :{S!t  (1S79). 


oil,  VIII.]  CONKTUIICTION  OF  C()NTKACT8. 


210 


§  ir)l>.  Jiaf/r/df/c. —  A  notice  coiifaiiicd  in  iiii  iulvt'rtisc- 
nicnt  of  the  rate  of  fiirc  for  tijivcliiiir  in  a  coacii  in  llic  fol- 
lowinjr  words,  "AH  l)ajr,ira<r<^  at  the  risk  of  the  owners," 
docs  not  apply  to  piickiifrcs  of  jroods  jrcncrally  carriiMl  in 
such  coach,  l)ut  is  to  I)c  conliucd  to  truid<s  and  other  haj;- 
•.'ML'c  of  persons  travcliiij;  therein.''"  In(lep<'ndent  of  con- 
tract and  notice  a  carrier  is  only  lialtle  as  such  for  the 
"  l»a;ma<jre "  of  passeiiji'ci's.  The  cases  showinj^  what  is 
"  l)ajr,irage  "  are  niiniei'ous.''  Wiien^  the  advertisement  of 
a  carrier  stated  that  passen<rers  weiv  "  pi-ohiltited  from 
lakiiiir  anytliiniX  as  haiiirajre  hut  their  wcarinjr  apparel,  which 
will  lie  at  the  risk  of  the  owner,"  and  the  trunk  of  a  pas- 
sen<r<'r  contained  specie,  and  the  extra  weiirht  of  his  bajr- 
Lraire  was  paid  foi'  and  taken  charge  of  hv  the  a<;ents  of  the, 
carrier,  it  was  held  iu)t  incuinhent  on  the  passenirer  to  in- 
form the  carrier  of  its  contents,  unl''ss  he  was  iiupiired  of; 
that  it  was  immaterial  wiiether  the  trunk  was  to  he  c(  .isid- 
ered  as  l»a<r<ra<re  or  frei<rht,  and  that  tlu^  carrier  was  lial)lc 
for  its  loss  through  the  nejxiigence  or  fraud  of  its  airents."* 
§  ItiO.  *'  /ircd/caijf." — See  "  Leaka<;e  and  lireakaire." 
§  1(11,  "C.  ().  />." — Some  courts  have  taken  judicial 
notice,  of  the  s'<rniti<'ation  of  these  words,'''-'  while  others 
have  re(|uired  pai'ol  evidence  to  explain  their  nieaninjr.*^ 
Tho  letters  ♦'  C.  ().  D."  refer  to  the  value  or  pric«'  of  the 
packajxe  which,  as  mai'ked  on  it,   is  to  he   colledcd  on  de- 


*  IJockiiiiiii  v.  SluMiso,  .'»  Kiiwlo,  170  (ISU.")) ;  Dwight  v.  Urew.stt'r,  1 
Pick.  r)0  (IH22). 

•■"  Sec  Now  V..rk  O-nt.  R.  ('(».  v.  Fniloff.  !)  (Viif.  T..  J.  \\V2  (1S7!)).  .Sc« 
;ils(t  po.sY.  §  1S7,  ••OwiicrV  |{isk." 

»«  Camdfii  Ac.  K.  Co.  v.  Ilalilunf.  1(!  Pa.  St.  r.7  (IS.M). 

•''■•' 'riicsc  loiters  arc  l)y  im  iiwaiw  (•al)alisti(al.  'i'licy  liavc  lo  occult 
tior  mysterious  incaiiiii);.  In  the  ordinary  coiiiinorce  of  tlie  coiiiilry 
tliese  letttMH  have  aei|uire(l  a  (ixcd  and  deterniinate  ineanln;;.  that  conrtH 
anil  juries  from  their  ;;eneral  information  will  readily  understand  what 
is  meant  therelty  when  aveired  in  a  pleading;  without  explanalioii. 
I'idted  Stales  KxpressCo.  v.  Keefer.  5(1  Ind.  -HSW  (l.'<77)  ;  Anierlcaii  &c. 
Kx)»res<   (Ni.    v.    Schier.   T),*!  III.    HO  (1S70);  American   Express   Co.  v. 

i.i'M-m.  :i!i  III.  :n-j  (isdin. 

♦^  "Tlic   IflterH   'C.  (I.    !►.,' followed   l)y    an   uinonnl  in  dollars,   have 


220 


THK  CONTKACT8  OF  CAKUIKKH. 


[CH.  VIII. 


livery  and  ti'iinsinitd'd  to  Iho  consijjfuor.  Thoy  luivc  noth- 
iiij;  to  do  with  tlu;  traiispoittitiou  clmrjiji's,^'  nor  do  thoy  iif- 
ftH't  thi'  character  of  tho  shipment.  The  duty  to  transport 
suftdy  remains  the  same.  Hut  if  tlic  consi/jnee  neglects  or 
refuses  t(»  take  the  proi)erty  and  pay  the  money,  the  former 
remains  in  the  carrier's  hands  subject  only  to  his  liability  as 
u  warehouseman/^ 

§  Hi2.  '■'(Umtvniii  Unknown.'"  See  "Value  and  Con- 
tents Unknown." 

f  lOH.  *'  l>(inia(j('." — A  condition  in  a  hill  of  laUtnj,'  ex- 
empt inji^  u  carrier  from  liai)ility  for  "  any  dama<;e  "  is  to  i)e 
riiud  as  if  followed  by  the  clause  "  if  not  occasioned  by  his 
nejrli<;cnce  or  that  of  his  si'rvants."  In  an  Knjjiish  case 
goods  weie  shipped  on  board  a  steamer  under  a  bill  of 
ladinir  which  contained  an  exception  from  liability  from 
♦'bicakagc,  Icakairc  or  damaije."  The  goods  were  found  at 
the  end  of  the  voyage  to  l)e  injured  by  oil.  It  was  piovcd 
that  there  was  no  oil  in  the  cargo,  but  that  theiv  were  tw(» 
donkey  engines  on  deck  near  the  place  where  the  goods 
were  stowed,  in  lul)i'icaling  which  oil  was  usi>d.  There  was 
no  direct  evidence  how  the  injury  to  the  goods  occurred. 
The  court  held  that  from  these  facts  a  jury  was  justified  in 
finding  the  existenct;  of  negligciuc.^'  .So  where  the  bill  of 
lading  contained  a  clause  :  "The  shipowner  is  not  to  be  liable 
for  any  damage  to  any  goods  which  is  capable  of  being 
covered  by  insui'ance,"  it  was  held  that  "damage"  would 
include  damage  to  tiie  goods  amounting  to  a  total  loss  or  tie- 

conu!  to  1)0  wi'll  iiiidiMsliiDil  ill  tin'  coiniiiiiiiily  ami  by  tli<'  |>iil)lic,  but 
pfiliiips  roiild  iKit,  witlioiit  ilic  aid  of  extrinsic  i-vidcnct',  Ix'  read  ami  in - 
ttTprclcd  hy  till'  courts;  tliat  Is  tln>ir  mi'aiiiii^j  may  not  In-  coiisidt'icd  as 
jinlitially  sdtliMl,  or  so  well  iindi-rstood  tliat  judicial  iioilcft  can  \m  tiikt'ii 
of  tlic  |>iii|»os('  for  wliicli  tiiosc  It'ttt'rs  arc  ii-;cd.  in  tlic  connection  in 
wliidi  tlicy  arc  found,  or  tlic  contract  to  bi-  iiii|ilic<l  from  tliciii.  It  was 
C('rt:viniy  competent  to  explain  tlicm  and  thus  remove  all  anibi^ijuity  by 
parol  evidence."     Collender  v.  Diiwmoie.  .*).'i  N.  Y.  2(M)  (US7:0. 

♦'  American  Ac.  Kxpiess("o.  v.  Soliier,  "),•)  III.  I  JO  (IS70). 

*'  Ciibson  V.  Ameri(!aii  Ac.  Kxpress  di.,  I  lliin.  '.W  ns7l). 

«C/.ccli  V.  (jieneral  .Steam  Nav.  Co.,  I,.  K.  ;i  C.  I'.  1  J;  ;I7  I..  J.,  V.  V.  3; 
16  W.  U.  i;U);  17  L.  T.  (X.  S.)  210  (1807).     .See  also  ante,  Cap.  VI. 


ni.  Vlir.]  CONSTIUJCTION  OK  CONTUACTR. 


221 


sfruction  of  them,  hut  did  not  apply  to  the  oiise  of  the  Jih- 
strai'tioii  of  the  j^ooils.^*  In  this  country  it  has  been  hrhl 
that  a  reh'asc  of  a  raihoad  company  from  liability  for 
»*  (lamu^ic  to  jroods  whiles  in  transit"  will  not  <>xtcnd  to  a 
total  loss  of  them  by  lire  whili;  in  the  t'ompany's  warehouse 
lit  an  intermediate  station/'' 

§  1(!1.  "  Ddutji'i'K  Incident  to  (he  Naviijatiim  of'  thn 
J{iri-r. — See  "  Danirers  of  Navipition." 

§  Ki.').  "  Ihnitfrrs  of  \<irif/ii(ion/' — And  herein  "  Dan- 
j:crs  Incident  to  the  Naviufation  of  llic  River,"  "  Dangers  of 
the  Lake,"  "  Danirers  of  the  Kivcr,"  "  Danirci's  of  the 
Seas,"  "  Inevitalde  Accidents,"  "  I'crils  of  the  Lake," 
»»  I'crils  of  tlu!  Kivcr,"  "  I'crils  of  the  Seas"  and  "  I'lia- 
V()idal)le  Accidents."  Sec  also  "  I'luivoidablc  Accidents." 
— .Vt  first  the  exception  which  shipowners  were  accustomed 
to  insert  in  their  contracts  was  neither  Icnj^lhy  nor  obscure, 
c«)nsistin<i:  simply  of  tlu;  words  *'  the  danirers  of  the 
.seas,"  *'•  and  in  this  respect  differed  greatly  from  the  motl- 
ern  bill  of  ladinjr-^^     Ihil  in  <'oiis(!(pienc(!   of  a  rulinjjj  made 


*'  'I'uvlor  V.  Livfiiwol  Sii'.  Sicam  Co.,  I..  U.  0  Q.  IJ.  5l(i  (1S74). 

<■■  Mfii/cll  V.  Uaihviiy  <'o..  I  Dillon,  jVII  (1S7()). 

*•  .Vbholt  on  ."^hippiiij;.  (itii  .\tn.  t'd.  101.  'I'Ik;  fxccptioii  of  tlie  '*  daii- 
jjcrs  of  tlif  SIMS  "  iri  fomiil  in  bills  of  ladiii;;  as  <'arly  as  ilio  reign  of 
Oharlt'H  tho  First.     I'i.'iK'ring  v.  Haikli'y.  1  Style.  HI  (1(]S7). 

*"  The  r('fi'i|>ts  and  bills  (if  ladiii;^  now  used  by  <>oniinon  rarricrs  avo 
w<'ll  cliaractt'i'izcd  by  tindgc  Kcdiicld  as  tin*  iw  plus  ultrin)i  the  ingiMiionx. 
(J«vie«H  of  tliK  common  caiilci'  craft  in  linding  some  mode  of  escape 
from  all  jusi  n-spon-iliility.  Kxaniplcs  of  ilit-  modern  bill  of  lading  arft 
given  below ,  in  tlie  receipts  of  foni  of  Die  largest  e.xpress  compiinies  ii> 
this  uoniitrv.  '  .' 


[UKAO  THIS  ItJ-fKll'T.] 

"  Keceivod  from— ,  at- 


"  lI.\!Ti:i)  STATKS  KXI'UKS.S  CO. 

,  the  following  articles,  which  we  un- 


dertake to  forwiird  to  the  point  nearest  t<i  destinalion  reached  )>y  thi.'i 
oonipuny  only,  perils  of  navigation  exfcpied.  Ami  ll  Is  hereby  expres.-ly 
agreed,  that  III.  ,>aid  I  MTl.l)  S  TA  IKS  KXI'UKSS  ((J.MI'ANY  are  not 
to  ?!!'  'ield  liabli!  for  any  loss  or  danMige,  except  as  forwarders  <inly :  nor 
lor  siiiv  loss  or  daiojge  of  a'lv  bnv.  paekage  '  r  thing,  for  over  8.'i().  tnd<sH 
(he  j'isi  nd  Inn,'  value  thereof  is  herein  staled.  n<  i  for  any  loss  or  dam- 
■ij;**  by  lire,  the  aetK  o{  (jnd  or  of  the  enen>ies  of  the  Ueveiiiment,  the 
re-itraint  of  goverinnents,  ini.bs,  riots,  insnrreclions  oi|ilialei,  or  froiif 
any  of  tlic  dangers  incident  to  u  time  of  war;  nor  apoa  any  property  'or 


l';0USl»«Ui<> 


222 


TlIK  CONTKACT8  OF  CAIUtlKllH. 


[Cll.  VIII. 


M 


■<*  1 


I:         I      t 


thin;;;  imloss  projxMly  packed  mid  secured  for  tiaiisportiitloii;  intr  iipmi 
fnif^ilt!  fulnifs.  unless  so  iiiiiiked  upon  tin?  pueka^^e  contaiiiiii;^  the  same; 
nor  upon  any  fralnies  t-onslstin;;  of  or  eontaiiu'd  in  <;lass.  If  any  sinn  of 
njouey.  besides  tlie  <liar;(i^  for  transportation,  is  to  l)e  eolieete(J  from  tlie 
ronsignee  on  delivery  of  the  properly  deseribed  herein,  and  tlu-  same  is 
not  iiaid  wilidn  thirty  days  from  the  date  hereof,  the  shipper  af^rees 
that  this  company  may  return  said  property  to  him  at  the  expiration  of 
that  time,  subject  to  the  conditions  of  this  receipt,  and  that  he  will  pay 
the  char;;es  for  transportation  both  ways,  aiul  that  tlu;  liability  of  tliis 
company  for  such  property,  while  in  its  possession  for  tin;  purpose  of 
niakiiij^  such  collecliou,  shall  be  thai  of  warehousemen  oidy." 


"  Kceeived  of- 


"  AMKJtlCAN  KXl'KKSS  COMPANY. 
-,  187     ,  the  property  hereinafter  described: 


which  we  undertake  to  forward  to  the  nearest  point  of  destination 
reacheil  by  this  comi)any,  subject  expressly  to  the  following  (•onditions, 
nuinely :  This  company  Is  not  to  be  held  liable  for  any  loss  or  damage, 
except  as  forwarders  only,  nor  for  any  loss  or  damage  by  lire,  by  the 
dangers  of  navigati<ui,  by  the  acts  of  (Jod  or  of  the  enemies  of  the  gov- 
ermiu'iit,  the  restraints  of  govermnent,  mobs,  riots,  insmi-ections, 
pirates,  or  from  or  by  reason  of  any  of  the  hazards  or  dangers  incident 
to  a  .>tale  of  war.  Nor  shall  this  company  be  liable  for  any  d.-faull  or 
negligence  of  any  person,  c(U'poralion  or  association  to  whom  the  above 
described  property  shall  or  maybe  (hdivered  by  this  compauN .  for  the 
performance  of  any  act  or  duty  in  I'cspect  thereto,  at  any  phwe  or  point 
off  the  established  routes  or  lines  run  by  this  company,  and  any  sin-li  per- 
son, cor|)oration  or  association  is  not  to  b<'  regarded,  dceinetl  or  taken  to 
be  the  agent  of  this  company  for  any  such  purpose,  but  (Ui  the  contrary 
.such  |)erson,  corporation  (.r  association  shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be 
the   agent  of  the  person,   corporation  or   association    from    whom    Ibi-i 

company  received  the  property  aboV(>  described.     It   being  un<ler>l I 

that  this  com])any  relics  upon  the  various  railroad  iind  steamboat  lines  of 
th(^  country  for  its  means  of  forwarding  property  delivered  to  it  to  bi' 
forwarded,  it  is  agreed  that  it  shall  not  be  liable  for  any  damage  to  said 
|)roperty  caused  by  the  detention  of  any  train  of  cars  or  of  anv 
steamboat  upon  which  said  property  shall  be  placed  for  transportation; 
nor  by  the  neglect  or  refusal  of  any  railroail  ciunpany  or  steamboat  to 
receive  and  forward  the  said  property.  It  is  fnrtlier  agreed  thai  ibis 
company  are  not  to  be  iield  lialile  or  responsil)le  for  any  loss  of.  or  dam- 
age to  said  propel ty  or  any  part  thereof,  fnun  any  caime  whatever,  un- 
less in  every  case  tlie  said  loss  or  damage  be  proved  to  have  occurri-d 
from  the  fraud  or  gross  neglig<'nce  of  said  company  ov  their  servants; 
nor  in  any  event  shall  this  coini»any  be  held  liable  or  responsible;  nor 
Khali  any  demaiul  be  made  upon  them  b(>yond  the  sum  of  llfiv  dollais.at 
which  sum  said  property  is  hercl)y  valued,  unless  the  ju-t  and  true  \  ilue 
thereof  is  statcrd  herein;  nor  upon  .any  property  or  thing  nidcss  pioiwrly 
packed  and  securi'd  for  tran>porlali(Mi;  nor  n|ion  any  fragile  fabriis  un- 
less so  marked  upon  tlie  package  containing  the  .-anie;  nor  upon  any 


'-.''.■■3 


CH.  VIII.]  CON8TKUCTION  OF  CONTHACTS. 


223 


fiihrirs  t'onslxliiijj  of  or  coiitaiiicd  hi  ;jliiss.  If  any  siiiii  of  inoiioy  JicsltltM 
tlic  ili!ir;;fs  for  t^all^^llo^latio||  Is  to  Ix- fullcitctl  from  the  ('oii«l;;iit't?  on 
<l('livfry  of  tlifaltovc  (It'scrilu'tl  properly,  iiml  tin-  same  is  not  paid  witliin 
tliirly  days  from  tin- (late  iicrt'of,  till'  sliippt-r  ajj;rccs  tlial  this  i'(»mi>any 
may  rt'lnrn  said  |)ro]iiM'ly  to  Idm  at  fxpiration  of  tiiat  time.  siilijtM  t  to  tlio 
conditions  of  tids  receipt,  and  tliat  lie  will  |)ay  tin-  cliar;;es  for  transpor- 
tation hotii  ways,  and  tliat  the  liability  of  this  company  for  such  prop> 
crty  while  in  its  possession  for  the  purpose  of  maUin;^  such  collection, 
fliall  he  that  of  warehousemen  oidy.  In  no  event  shall  this  company  \>i'. 
liahlc  for  any  loss  or  dania;;e  unless  tiie  claim  thereof  shall  he  presented 
to  them  in  wrltin;^  at  this  olllce  within  ninety  days  after  tliis  date,  in  ii 
titatenu'nt  to  whieli  tIds  receipt  shall  he  iinnexod.  'I'he  party  aci-eplin;; 
this  receipt  hereby  ajjrees  to  the  conditions  herein  contained.  Tho 
Anu'iican  Kxpress  ('ompuny  assume  no  liability  for  delays,  losses  or 
non-delivery  beyond  their  lines." 

[KOMESTic  HIM.  OK  i.Ai.iNd.]  "ADAMS  KXl'HKS.S  ("OMl'ANY. 

1S7     .     Iteceived  of .  value ,    for   which   this  company 

»liarj;es Marked ,  which  It  is  nuitually  a;;rce<l    is  to   be  for- 

wardeil  ti»  our  a;;eni'y  nearest  or  most  coiisenieut  to  desiinntion  only, 
and  tlu-re  delivereil  to  oilier  parlies  to  comphii'  the  lrans|)ortalion.  It 
is  part  of  the  consideration  ol  this  contrai  t.  and  it  is  agreed,  that 
the  said  express  company  are  /ormiiders  only,  and  are  not  lo  be  held 
liable  or  icsponsible  for  any  lo>.s  or  daina;;e  to  said  piopcrty  while  bcinjy 
«'onveyed  by  the  iirriers  to  \\boni  the  same  may  be  by  >aid  express  ri<«u- 
paiiy  Intrusted,  or  ui'isiii)(  from  the  daiif^ers  of  railroa<l.  ocean  or  rher 
niivi^ation.  steam,  fire  in  stores,  depots,  or  in  transit,  leakaj^je.  I)reaka';e, 
Ol'  from  any  cause  whaten-r.  unless  in  every  ca-e  the  same  be  proM'd  to 
have  occurred  from  the  fraud  or  ({I'oxs  ne^^li^ence  of  said  express  com- 
pany Ol'  their  servant*:  nor  in  any  eveiii  shall  ilie  holder  hereof  demand 
beyond  the  -iim  of  lifly  dollar'^,  at  wliicli  the  article  forw  aided  i>  hereby 
valued,  unless  otherwi-e  her«  111  expri'ssed.  or  unless  specially  insnreil  by 
theiii.  and  ho  sp<'cilled  in  Ibis  receipt.  mIiIcIi  insurance  shall  constitiitfl 
the  limit  of  the  liability  of  the  /\i|  ini"  Mxpie-'s  Coinpanv .  And  d  Ibe 
Kiune  Is  liilru»ied  or  dcliveri-d  lo  ni\y  other  express  company  or  a;;ent 
(which  said  .\danis  Kxpress  rompimy  are  hereby  aiilliori/ed  to  do. such 
person  orcom|ialiy  so  selected  shall  be  rejfaided  exclusively  as  tile  .  ;.''»*ilt 
of  (lie  shipper  or  owner,  and  as  such  iiloiie  liable,  and  the  Adam^  \'.\- 
press  Company  fliall  not  he,  in  any  event,  reponsible  for  the  iie;r|io^en<-e 
or  noii-p(>rformiiiM'e  of  any  such  company  or  p(>rson,  and  the  ship|>»>r 
and  owner  hereliy  "everiilly  a;,—ee  thai  all  the  slipulations  and  coiidi- 
tioiis  in  lids  receipt  conlahied,  sjiall  extend  to  and  inure  to  the  benelii  of 
each  and  every  eompany  or  perxoii  to  whom  the  Adams  Kxpress  Coni- 
pany  may  iiilriisi  or  deliver  the  above  descrilied  property  for  triin>|>orla- 
tation.  and  shall  deline  and  limit  the  liabilltv  therefor  of  •'Uch  otiior 
compiiny  or  person.  In  no  event  shall  the  Adams  Kxprt>»s  <'<4iipany  be 
liable  for  any  loss  (tr  damaj^e,  unless  the  claim  iherefur  sliall  be  piv- 
M'liled  lo  them  ill  wrilin;^  at  tUi»  olllce,  within  thirty  days  after  this  date 


r.WHV  ^ie^^'-r-t^Vn/iT-UiAJK  4^.:'-uj-,iB.'-« 


h-Hfsi^n  ■  ">»»!■--. 


■*l 


I 


224 


THK  rONTUACT.S  OF  rAltltlKUS. 


[rii.  VIII. 


In  n  Htatoiiu'iit  to  wliicJi  tliln  rocpipt  sliall  bo  iiniu'XOiJ.  All  arllclfs  of 
jjliisH  or  I'diitaini'd  ill  j;lii«s.  or  any  of  a  fia;;ll»'  iiatnif.  will  In-  lal\rii  ui 
Hlii|>|u'r's  risl\  only,  ami  till' sliippcr  aj;ifcs  that  tin" /'oinpany  ^liall  not 
he  held  r<'sii()iisihl(!  fof  any  Injury  by  hrcakajjc  or  otln'r\M«f,  nor  for 
(lania^i-  to  jjooils  not  properly  packed  and  scenrcd  f(»r  tran-^porlatjon. 
It  is  further  agreed  that  »aid  eonipaiiy  shall  not,  in  an\  event,  he  iiaMe 
for  any  loss.  dania;;e  or  detention  caused  hy  the  acts  of  (!od,  civil  m 
military  aiithoiity.  oi-  liy  lehcllion,  piracy.  Insuriccllon  or  ilut.  or  tlie 
dati;;<'rs  incident  ton  time  of  war.  or  liy  any  riotous  or  armed  assem- 
hla;;^.  If  any  sum  of  money,  besides  the  charjce  for  transportation,  i^  to 
be  collected  from  the  con»i;;nce  on  delivery  of  the  aliove  de-cribed  pinp- 
rrl\ .  and  the  same  is  not  pa:<l  witidn  lliirty  days  from  the  date  hereof, 
the  sliippcr  a;crees  tlial  thi»  conijiany  may  return  said  property  to  him 
at  the  expiration  of  iliat  time,  suliject  to  the  conilifions  of  this  receipt. 
and  that  he  will  pay  the  changes  for  ti'ansportation  both  ways,  and  tinit. 
the  liabiiily  of  liii-  company  for  sucli  property  wliiic  in  its  pos>e>«ion  for 
the  purptise  of  making;  sucli  coilection  sliall  be  that  of  warehoiiscmei) 
onlv," 


fltl-AH  Tilts  UKCKIIT.I  "SOI'TIIKUN  KXnn;SS  COMPANY. 

!'•  l>omc«iic  Itill  of  Ladinjj.J     licceived  of ,  valued  at dollars, 

and  for  which  amount  the  ehar;;es  are  made  liy  said  company,  marked 

.     Which  it  is  mutually  ai,'rci'd  is  to  lie  forwarded  to  our  aircncy 

nearest  or  most  convenient  to  desiination  only,  and  there  deiivereil  to 
other  parties  to  conifdete  the  transportation.  It  is  a  part  of  the  con>id- 
oralion  <if  tliis  loutract.  and  it  is  a;rrced.  that  the  said  express  company 
AUK  roi:\V.\KI»i;|{.^  only,  and  are  not  to  lie  lield  liable  or  re>pou-i- 
blc  for  any  loss  or  dama<;e  to  sabi  properly  while  Im'Iiij;  I'onveyed  by  tlie 
C.MiKIKK.S  to  whom  the  same  may  be  b\  said  express  company  in- 
trusted, or  arlsinir  from  tli*-  ilan^^ers  of  railr<iads,  ocean  or  river  iiiivii^M- 
tion.  steam,  tire  in  stori'.  depots,  or  in  transit,  leakaj^e.  l)reaka;rc.  or 
fr<im  any  cause  whatever,  unless,  in  every  case,  the  same  be  proved  to 
hiivo  ot.'ciirreil  from  the  fraud  or  j^ioss  nej^lij^eme  of  said  express  com- 
jiiiiiN'  or  tin  ir  servants,  niilrss  xpniiilhi  iniiiml  h;/  it  ami  an  spi'iiih,i  ,,»  this 
liri-ri/ii,  which  ln~iiiaui'c  shall  constitute  the  limit  of  the  liability  of  the 
SOI'TIIKUN  KXI'UKSSt  O.MI'ANY  in  any  event  and  If  the  value'»of 
the  property  above  de-cribed  |m  iioI  dialed  by  (he  i-liljiper  at  the  Jiine  of 
f-||i|i!!!eiil.  ai|(|  specldcd  in  ihjs  ri'ccipi,  the  liohlci  luucot  will  nut  de- 
lllllllil  lit  llMl  HOrillliMN  KXI'MI'IHH  COMI'ANY  a  sum  exceedliijf 
hUpn  tliilhirH,  fill  the  |o-s  of.  or  i|iiiii/||;('  |o,  eai  ii  jnnUnffv  herein  receipted 
for.  Nor  shall  the  said  coinpiMiy  li(^  licid  i'i's|,iii|s||,|e  for  the  >afe|;i  of 
Hiild  property  iiflcr  It*  iirrlvul  nl  l(s  pjiii'i'  i»f  desiiiniiioii.  AiuI'I/  ihr  kihw 
is  tiitrunliil  or  ililivi-ml  1,1  iimj  hllni  lliinii"!  I'lnnjinnii  i>r  tHI>'iit  (whtrlt  miiil 
Siiullnrii  h'riirrsn  <'i,m]iiinii  <m'  ln'i'ilnj  tiiilliiiiitnl  In  iln)  nmh  ('iiiii}\iiiiii  nr 
prriiiin  mi  Ki-hrtcil  thull  hf  rriifinlpil  iirluHlV)'!)/  (in  Ihv  m/nil  n/  lln'  hIiI/iii,  r  m- 
ownir,  mill  an  nii<ii.  nlnii,'  llidilr.  uml  llu  Snuthrrn  h'/lirnm  Cniiipnii;!  xhnll 
nut  be,  in  any  ivnit,  rispoiiHihUfor  tlw  myllyinir  nr  iiiinytifiirvuini'i'  nj  ,iiiij 


(II.    \  III.]  ('O.N.slitt  (rioN   IW  CONTKACTS. 


385 


111 


tiiii!i  niiiiiiiniij  •'!•  iiirsiiii;  iiiiil  llic  slilpprr  nml  ovmh'I'  lM'rt'l(\  MM'rally 
arrive  !li;il  :ill  llic  ^tilillljitiiiii-^  Mini  toiiilitinus  in  tllin  rcr('i|it  r'tillililicil 
>li;ill  i'Mi'ikI  til  mill  iinirc  l<>  tin'  lniK'tlt  of  imcIi  iiimI  every  eiuujiaiiy  or 
pi  TMiii  III  wlioiii  i!ii' S"uilieiu  ilxin  •-<  <'om|iim>  in.iv  inliii-it  nr  1. 'liver 
llie  aliove  (leseriiieil  luuperly  for  lr;m«iiiiriaiiiiii.  and  shall  tleiliu'  and 
limit  till'  iialtiiity  lliciefur  <if  snrii  other  eoinpaiiy  or  person.  In  ii'>  event 
•liall  III'' Suiuinrn  Hxpie— < ',,in|iany  lie  liiilile  tor  any  lo<-  or  (lania;,'i', 
nnle.-s  tin-  elaini  tliei>'l'or  >!iall  lie  pre-riiled  to  lliein  In  w liiiiiu'  il  H'l-'  "f- 
llee  williln  Ihirt)'  da\  -  ifter  till-  dali'.  in  a  statement  to  wliieli  this  ii  leipt 
hliali  II'' iUiiH'Neil.  All  nriii'li'"  of  <il,.\SS  <.)•  (''W(^r//lM(  ///  (ihiss.  itr  mt;!  of 
afi'iiijUi  iiiilnrr  ^^il!  lie  lalven  at  ,S7ii/i/ir;'',f  ii\l,- mih/,  and  llie -hippi-r  a;iri'eH 
that  tlie  eompasiy 'liall  iml  lie  li'ld  ri-|inn-il»ie  Inr  any  injiiis  m  lireiik- 
a;;e.  or  otliei'w  i-e.  leir  fur  iLiiiiaLT'' in  u'l  mU  not  in  nin'iK  parlved  anil  ii(!- 
enreii  for  traii-portali"ii.  i'  i>  Initli'i-  a^rried  thai  >aid  eonipiiiy  sliill 
not.  in  any  e\i  iii.  lie  liaMe  I'm'  an\  lo--^.  dainagr  fi  detention  eaiised  liy 
tlie  ai'I^  of  (iod.  ii\li  ir  iiiijiiaiy  aiithorily.  or  liy  insuiieilioii  or  riot,  or 
the  daiiicers  iiuidi'iii  to  a  liiiic  of  war." 

On  the  liai'k  of  ilie  rei'i'Ipt  of  this  last  eompany  i-  the  fojlowiiijf : 

••  Siiiilhi'in  I'lsiui'-- ( 'ompan\  lnTcliy  ijnaranty  the  safe  arrisal  of  !li(» 
article- named  in  litis  receipt  (sei/nre  iir  stoppaj^c  hy  civil  or  niiiitaiy 
force  excepted),  at   ---.  and  in  case  of  failure,  or  damaj;e  li\  tire,  water, 

or  the  peril-  ot  iia\  iu^alimi  or  transporlalion.  to  p.iy  to or  iissi^rns,  the 

slim  of  -  dollar-.  Ill'  in  |iro|iortion  thereto  as  the  amount  of  dama<;es 
sii-taiiied  liear-^  to  till' value  -taled  aliove.  The  same  to  lie  delermiiied 
liy  three  disinterested  apprai-irs.  if  the  parties  can  not  «ithcr\vlse  afjree; 
it  lieiii;;  nndei'stood  that  lhi<  ;;nai'anlee  shall  not  extend  lieyoiul  twidve 
lionrs  after  the  arrival  of  thi'  ;;oods  at  the  aliove  named  olllce  or  station." 

Ill  INdtield'-  American  Ifaiiway  (.'ases.  Vol.  'J.  p.  "Jll,  the  foliowinj; 
form  of  ;i  liill  of  ladinj^  -aid  to  lie  In  use  in  a  nei^rlihorin;;  province  is 
Hlven: 

"  shipped.  In  i^iiod  order  and  condition  hy  in  and  upon  the  screw 

iiltMiinsllip  calli'd  the  wlicji'iif  |s  inastci  for  the  present  voyaj^i; 

or  w  hoever  el-e  may  ^o  as  master  in  the  Huid  *hlp  and  hoimd  for  he- 

iiii;  marked  and  ;.iiinliered  as  in  the  margin,  and  aic  to  lie  delivered  from 
the  -liip's  dei  k  (\\hi're  the  -hipowner's  responsiliility  shall  cease;  in  the 
like  ;;iioil  order,  and  well  eondilioiu'il  (siihjecl  to  liio  ex<'eption.s  uml  rv- 
ftrictiojH  of  the  lojjovN  lii^  and  ninh't  iiielilloinil  claiisi  i  ,ii  the  jiort  of 
llhe  ml  of  (iiiil.  the  tiuecn's  enemies,  pirates,  rolilicrs,  thieves, 
vmiiilll,  hiillHliy  iif  liiaHtri'H  iiitil  lilijlllli-l'K,  restraints  of  princes  and 
nili'i'i,  or  pfopje, '■m'lttliiK.  ih-iil1lclenc\  of  piiikaj^e  in  size,  strciiirth  or 
otherwi-e.  leakafU'.  Iireaka;;e.  jdlfeiiine,  i»il«|a){e.  lain,  sjiray,  nist,  frost, 
deeiiy.  mntact  with  or  smell,  or  evaporation  from  any  other  j^oixls,  inae- 
ciiraeie-  in.  olditei atjiin.  Insntlli  iency  or  ahst-nce  of  marks,  immliers  or 
addt('»-es.  Ill  de-'Ci'ipiioii  of  j;i>ods  shipped,  injnry  to  wi'a|ipi  rs  however 
lanseij.  lifrjiU'rane  i»»  or  from  the  venHel,  trans-shipment,  jettison,  oxplo- 
»hin.  heat,  fire  at  anytime  or  in  any  jilaee,  boilers,  steam,  macliinery 
t,inclndln>{  conseiiiicnce  of  defect  tlu'iein  or  damage  thereto),  eoilision, 
etiandliig.  >tniining  ui    otiier  periU  uf  the  neixt,   riv«r8.  uavigutioa  or 


2-2C) 


Tiir;  n>NTi!.\rTS  of  caiiimkus. 


[CM. 


II. 


9t   H 


II 


land  U'iiii-il  of  wliiit'iocvci-  iialiii')'  i>v  Uiml.  Ami  all  i1aina;;c,  \,»<  or 
Injury  aii-ln;;  fmni  ilu'  |irrlU  nr  lliin;.''*  alx'Vf  nn-ntlnni'd.  ami  whcilicr 
Hiii'h  ]»'v\\*  or  tliiiijjx  arlsf  fmni  iIh-  n<';rll,::('m'i',  di-fanlt  or  i-rior 
in  jiiiiiinii'nt  of  llio  pilot.  iiiiis'.iT.  ni.iiiinT>».  i'n;;lnc<'rs.  .xtcvi'tloros, 
or  oil'ci-  person-  in  tin'  »<i\iii'  of  ilif  ^liiiiowm-r  always  cxiTpicd, 
>\illi  lilMM'ly  to  <Mil  Willi  or  witlimit  pilot<.  to  rail  at  any  inlrrnic- 
<liaii'  pci:i  or  port«  for  any  pMipii.c,  and  to  low  :ind  as.i^t  vc,'*- 
s('1j»  in  :dl  .■<ltiialioni«.  Willi  liln'rly  in  tin'  event  of  tin-  steamer 
pnllinLT    l>aelx  into  any    port,    or  oiherwi-e  liein;;   pri'\enleil   from  niiy 

fan->e  from  eoimnenejn;;  or  proe lin;^   in  Ihe   ordinary  i-onr^e   of  her 

voya^'.  to  proeccd  under  sail  or  in  tow  of  any  oilier  \es-el.or  in  any 
otlier  manner  wliieh  till" -liipowner  sliall  tliinlx  lit,  and  to  ship  or  tian<- 
sliip  tlie  i;ii()(U  hy  any  oilier  \e«-el  I  iiiilo  or  to  as-ij;n-.  freijjhl 

ami  prima;je  payaltle  by  at    ihe  rale   of  wilh   aviMa;;<'  aeeiis- 

tomed. 

••  \V'ei.jlit.  Mjonsnro.  <ran;;e,  f|iialily.  eimililion,  ipianlity.  hrand.  eon- 
tents  am!  value  iinl\nown,  and  (he  shipowner  not  aeeoiintalile  for  Ihe 
same. 

••  The  owners  of  the  vessel  are  not  answeraMe  foi-  any  diserepaneieH 
between  the  sliippiii;;-niarks  as  desi'iilied  In  the  ma rj;in  hereof  and  the 
aelnal  inaiks  on  tlie  projierly;  nor  for  any  differences  lietweeii  llie  eon- 
tents  of  the  paelva;;es  and  deseiiptionof  the  same  in  the  bill  of  lading; 
nor  for  any  discrepaneies  between  llie  mill  i. rands  of  llonr  as  liereiu  de- 
scribed and  those  actually  dtdivered. 

" 'I'lie  ;roods  to  bo  received  l»y  the  fonsij^nee  immediately  the  \c-.scl  is 
ri'ady  to  di«char;j;e.  or  otiierw  ise  they  will  lie  landed  and  sioit-d  al  Ihe 
Sole  expense  and  risk  of  the  con>i;;nee  in  llie  \\arelioii>e  proxided  for 
thai  purpose,  or  in  the  public  sture  as  the  ciilleetor  of  the  port  of 
shall  direct,  ami  wbi'ii  deposited  in  the  pn  I  die  store  to  be  subject  in  rent, 
ami  the  keys  of  the  warehouse  id  be  delivcrcil  to  and  kept  in  chaifie  of 
tlie  odiecr  of  customs  under  tlie  ilirei'iion  of  the  collector,  the  collector 
of  the  port  beinu:  hercliy  aulhori/ed  to  ;;ranl  a  ^encrai  order  for  ilis- 
cliaif^iny;  immi'dialidy  after  the  entry  of  the  shiii. 

'■  Not  accoimtalde  to  any  cxtont  for  bullion,  speiie.  precious  metals 
niannfactnred  or  unmanfactnred,  plated  artiides,  f::lass.  china,  jewelry,  ar- 
ticles used  for  jewelry,  precious  stones,  trinkets,  watclics,  clocks,  tinie- 
jjiioees,  mosaics,  bills,  liaiik  notes  of  any  country,  orders,  notes  or  secur- 
ities for  i)aympnf  of  money,  stamps,  maps,  letters,  writin;;s,  title-deeds, 
l>aiiiliny:s,  en;rravin^s.  pictures,  statuary,  silks,  furs,  lace  or  cashmere 
niamifactnred  or  unmanufactured,  made  up  into  clotln's  or  otherwise, 
•contained  in  any  packajie  or  parc(d,  wliat<'ver  may  lie  the  value  of  such 
■articles,  nor  for  any  oilier  >;oods  of  whatever  description  aiiove  the  value 
■of  fllKI  per  i)ackajr<',  unless  the  value  be  therein  cxpressi^d.  and  extra 
jtcinlit  as  may  lie  a;;roed  on  lie  paid. 

'"I'lie  I'liipowtier  is  ncd  to  la>  lialiie  for  aiiv  dainiiun  |o  itiiy  ^;oods  which 
Is  capalde  of  bein;i  covered  by  in^Miauce;  nor  for  any  claim  notice  of 
-which  is  not  driven  t)ofoie  llie  removal  of  the  ^joods;  n<ir  for  claims  for 
damage  or  detention  to  goods  under  tiirongh  liills  of  lading,  w  here  t!ic 


til.   >  Ml-]  CONHTKl  (  lluN  Ol'  ((iMIJACrs. 


237 


»liiiii;i':f  i'  ili'iii- (ir  (lc|cnti'iiMi('riir«i  wliil-i  Uh' yiidiU  iirc  iinl  in  tlii>  pi)<«. 
tt('.'>'-ii)ti  of  till- --liiiiM^N  iii-i-;  iiiii' ill  liny  iM<i>  lor  iiini't'  than  the  iiivi.iri'  or 
(|t'rliir<'<l  Viiliii'  of  till'  ;^ooilv.  will  ■jii'vcr  >li  ill  li"  (III'  Ica-i, 

•  '  I  ;i.iii|>  oT  Mil  iiillaiiiiiialili'.  rxjilo^ix  I-  or  oiIhi-w  Ni'  liaii^^i-ioiH  cliarac- 
ti'i'.  >iii|i|><'i|  wiilioiit  |ii'i'ini~>ioii,  ami  witliuiit  lull  ill-cln^inc  of  llivirim- 
liirc.  Ilia-.  Ill'  >ci/ci|  ami  coiill-'ati'il  or  di'si  ro\  imI  liy  llir  ^liijiow  ni-r  ut 
iiii>  liiii'' ln'foif  ili'li\i'i'\ ,  w  iiliiiiil    any  roin|irii»alioii   lo  the  >lil|i|irf  or 

foll-iLjIH'l'. 

"All  lliii's.  ivvjK'ii^oi,  lo^-c-  or  (Iiiina;r<'  wlilcli  tin'  sliiiiowncr  (ir  U\n 
Huciit- or  scrviiiii-,  or  till' >lii|i  oi- carK"  may  liinir  or  >ulf('r  on  acconnt 
(if  iiK'onri'i  or  in'iiU'K'Icnl  inarUiiiu;  of  ilu'  |iai'Ka;;i'H  or  ili'<^('ri|ilioii  of 
tlit'ir  roiilcnt'^,  or  till' ilaii;;i>roii-i  iiatiii'i*  oi  stirli  lonlriil^.  ^Iiall  In'  paiil 
by  till-  >-lil|i|>i'r  or  i'oii«iun"i'  a*  ina.x'  lie  f<'i|iilrril.  aii'l  llic  --irijiow  iicr  shall 
liav'c  a  lien  n|ioii  the  ;; U  for  the  |ia\  iih'IiI  tlM't'cof. 

••  Till' onl.\  fondilion  on  wliirli  ^ila^s  will  I arried  W  timl    the  slilp- 

owiKT  sliall  not  1)1'  lirlil  lialilt'  for  any  lin'aUa;;i'  wliirli  may  oi'ciir, 
wlii'tlu'r  from  iii';;li^>'ni r  any  oilier  cai,  ■•  w  liatcNcr. 

••  {•■|i'i;;lil.  if  jiayalilc  liy  >iri|i|ii'i«,  i<  iliif  in  full  in  t'\i'liati;;i'  for  liill  of 
ladin;;.  or  if  pavaliii'  liy  coii-i;;  irc>  on  arrival  of  n^nods  at  plai'i'  of  «i(;s- 
linalion.  in  fxcliaii;;)'  for  drlivcry  order.  --I'tl  lenient  in  ei'lier  ea«e  to  li» 
made  w  iilioHi  di-eoinil  or  aliatemeni.     I'lei^ht    payalde   li\    shippers    to 

lie  paid.  -Ilip  ln«t   or  not    lo-l.     {■'reii;lll    pa\Mlp|e  hy  eo|i-it;liee  In  lie  paid  al 

the  eiiireni  rati'  of  e\eliaii;;e  for  liaiiUei»"  »i;;lii  liiJU  oil  London  on  IIk! 
dale  of   llie  «|eaiuei'«    report  at  the  eii-lom  hoii^e. 

••  I'leii^dit  oil  ;;(iod-.  to  order.  Ijipiid-  and  hrilllc  or  peri-hahle  ;;ood.i, 
]pa\  aide  liy  -hipper-  if   iei|iiii  ci|. 

••'riii-  hill  of  ladin;^.  duly  iiidoi>.ed.  to  he  ;;iven  in  exehaiiLje  for  de- 
livers' order. 

••  III  ease  the  w  Imle  or  aii\  pari  of  iiieMi„,i|.  speeitieil  herein  he  pre- 
vented hy  any  eau«e  from  ^roiii';  in  «aid  sii'amer  the  «liipu\\iier  i-  only 
lioiiiid  to  forward  them  hy  siiee linj;  -teamers  of  tlii>   line. 

••  In  aeeeptin;;  this  hill  of  ladlii-^  the  -hipper  or  other  a^^cnt  of  ihe 
owner  of  the  property  carried  e\|iies>|y  aeeepi>  and  a^rrees  to  all  its 
stipulation-,  exeeptiiiii>  and  eondiiion^.  w  lieiher  w  riiteii  or  printed. 

••  In  wiliie--  wheieof  the  master  or  a;r<'iit  of  the  said  ship  hath  alliinied 
to  hills  of  ladiii<;.  all  of  this  tenor  and  date,  the  one  of  w  hieh  hills 

heiii;;  aeeoniplished  the  others  lo  stand  \oid. 

••  haled  in  l.'^T  for  aeeiits." 

•• 'rill-.'"  sa\s  the  aiiihor  aho\e  referred  to.  ••  seems  to  he  a  (loeiiment, 
wliieli  iniirlit  do  eiedii  to  aii\'  a;;e  or  eonnirN  for  ii^  exhan-live  eharaeii'r 
in  the  way  of  e\ilii-ioii  of  all  |io-«ilile  ies|ioi|..iliility.  All  we  need  say 
of  sneh  >iiidiiiiis  e\elii~ion  of  all  re>piiiisiliiliiy  whatever  on  the  part  of 
the  earlier  is  ihai  it  is  so  eslreme  in  ii-  terms  of  e\elu--ioii  as  at   one.-  t<i 

expose  ll»  real  animus  as  heini^   the    ahsohile    de-l  nielioii    of    all    pos-ihle 

re-pon-ihility  on  the  pari  of  earriei'.  and  not  the  mere  re-tiietion  of  it 
w  illiin  reasonalpje  iiiiiiis.  ||  would  therefore  more  naliiialh  have  this 
di  -ad  >.  alliance  in  eoniin;^  he  fore  a  US'  eoiirl  fur  adjiidiealion.  w  here  we  may 
i-s[ t  the  iiisiiiiii>  of  jii-iieo  and  fair  d"alin,;;'  lo  prevail,  that  all  eon- 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


/. 


^ 


'^ 


i 


1^     A^.<^ 


1.0 


I.I 


LitM.    B2.5 

s?  tis,  mil  2.0 


12.2 


iI'LLS 


L25  11^  11^ 


7] 
7^/      -y; 


m.       >? 


.%f^.#/  ^ 


^  «>.■»■ 


^ 


%:^* 
"'^ 


o 


/ 


HiotDgraphic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14540 

(716)  872-4503 


'     ^-^     °\^    ^^ 


^^2^' 
^ 


'%'■ 


cv 


;  *rf     (V 


i'l 


fe'  .m 


22.S 


TIIK  rONTh'ACTS  OK  ("AKIMKIIS. 


[nr.  VIII, 


])V  the  Court  of  Kinii's  IjciuIi  in  17'J.V''*  and  which  j^sivo 
•i^rcat  aluiMH  to  cai'i-i-'i-s  hy  watiT  n  mow  s\v('('[)in_i>;  chuiso 
canio  into  use.  This  ciansc  whicli,  according'  to  Lord  Tkn- 
TKUDFA',  still  prevails  in  l""aii:hin(l.  is  in  IIk'sc  words:  " 'I'lio 
net  of  (iod,  liic  Kinii"'s  <'ii(Mnics,  lire  and  all  and  cvcrv  other 
danixcr  and  accident  of  the  seas,  rl\'ers  and  navigation  of 
whatever  nature  and  i^ind  :-oc\cr  excepted. "  Where  it  is 
necessarv  to  land  the  i^ood-;  l>y  1/oats  from  the  ship,  tiie  1'ur- 
tiierclause  isadde.l,  '•  I'isk  of  Iioats  so  far  as  ships  aix-  liahh; 
thereto."  '■'  The  [ilirase:;  '•  peiils  of  the  seas,"  "  perils  of 
the  river,''  "  perils  of  the  lake,"  "  daiiLiers  of  na\  i,Liation," 

ocnicd  weiihl  r(':!i!  iipoii  llic  vi  ry  fiicc  nT  lln'  (■(iiiti':icl  iiii  iinqiiiilil'KMl  ami 
niililiisliiiii;' (lisiMisilioii  (III  till' jiirt  <>f  llic  caniiT  to  i>,ai;i  tlic  iilnidst  at- 
tiiinalilc?  cxciiiptidii  from  all  jii<l  rcsiupiisiliility.  wiiilc  al  tlic  sanuf  linui 
dt'riviii;^  all  till' ciistdiiiaiy  hfiidits  of  tlic  iiiKlcrtaKiii;;;.  'I'lic  iialuro  of 
tliis  1)111  of  ladiii:;'  would  socin  almost  to  justify  the  <;;roimds  upon  wliicli 
some  of  till',  old  cases  attcmiit  to  vindicate  the  neees<ity  ()f  lioldiii;^  coni- 
nioM  i-ai'i'ieis  respoi!<il)le  for  all  losse.-;  oeeiifriiiic  while  the  jjoods  arc  in 
their  custody,  le.-t  if  any  exciisi'  wei'e  aeeepled,  tliey  min'lit  iiy  cond)ina- 
tion  with  thieves,  linrirlars  and  rohtx  .s  palm  off  upon  the  <oinl  some 
fal)ricated  defi'iise.  We  me  not  nnnnndfid  on  theotlier  hand  that  Ihi; 
severity  of  the  rule  of  re-jion  lliiliiy  upon  carriers  may  seem  i.'  justify 
some  dei^rec  of  walelifulness  on  their  iiail.  hut  we  can  not  suppose  Iherc^ 
is  any  necessity  of  their  attemplin;;  to  throw  all  tii(^  lisU  of  transporta- 
tion upon  the  fi-eiiihler.  It  is  rea>onal(le  and  jusl  that  the  eai'rier  sliould 
assume  all  the  risks  which  properly  attacli  to  his  portion  of  the  work  of 
transportation,  whicli  will  fnil)ract;  all  aids  and  ai)pliances  connected 
witli  tlie  work." 

*•  Smith  v.  Shepherd.  Al)hott  on  Shippiiifj;.  (!lh  Am.  ed.  :iS.|.  la  this 
case  a  flood  ]iavin<;  swept  away  a  part  of  a  t)aid\  on  which  ve.-s(ds  wcri; 
accustomed  to  lie  in  safety,  a  vesstd  sunk,  one  of  its  masts  remainin;; 
near  t lie  surface.  'I'he  defendant  upon  sailin<f  into  the  harhor  struck 
a^i^ainst  this  mast,  whicli  not  fijiviiij^  away  forced  his  hoat  upon  the  hank 
wlioie  she  struck,  and  in  conse(iuenee  of  tlu^  flood  iia\in;f  changed  th« 
btink,  sunk.     The  defendant  was  held  li;l>le. 

«  In  .Jolmston  v.  Henson.  4  Moore.  !M).  1  «.  it  11.  -151  (ISl'.t),  j>;ood.s 
wore  shipped  at  TiOmlon  to  Ix;  eonv<\ve(l  to  .lamaica.  The  ;;'oods  were 
tlu-re  sent  on  shor«^  according;  to  Uw  custom  of  the  West  India 
trade,  in  a  shallop  lielonujin^  to  the  shi|).  and  lost  t)y  perils  of  the  sea. 
Tiie  cltiusc  of  exception  in  tlie  tiill  of  ladiujij  was  in  tlie  follow in<^  terms: 
"  Tlie  act  of  (Jod,  iuul  all  and  every  other  daiifjer  and  accident  of  tlie. 
geas,  rivers  and  navij^ation.  of  wliatevor  nature  and  kind  soever,  r  "( 
risk  of  lioats,  so  far  as  sliips  are  liable  thereto,  excepted."  It  was  liehl 
that  tlic  shipowner  was  not  liable  for  sucii  loss  under  the  bill  of  lading. 


'■n 


cii.  viir.]  coNSTiiucrnoiV  of  coxtuacts. 


229 


*' danucrs  of  the  .sens,"  '"  "  daiiircrs  of  Ihe  rivor,"  "  dan- 
gers of  the  lake,"  "  unavoidaMc  dangers  of  tlie  rivor,"" 
^'dangers  incident  to  the  navigation  of  tlic  river,"  '''^  "inevitn- 
hle  aecidenls"  and  "nna>'oidal)le  accidents,"^*  are  converti- 
ble terms  and  will  he  considered  togcilher.  They  are  such 
perils,  dangers  and  accidents  as  are  of  an  extraordinary  na- 
ture; :in<l  arise  froni  irresistil)ie  force  which  can  not  he 
jruardetl  a;.'iiinst  hv  the  ordinai'v  exertions  of  human  skill 
and  pi'udeiice,'''  and  which  an;  i)eculiar  to  the  elements.'** 
They  are  liroader  than  the  ))hrase  "  act  of  (iod,"  in  that 
they  include  human  iigcncy.''*' 

rir.'-t.  As  to  what  ar(>  within  the  {'xcej^ticnis.  The  follow- 
ing have  hcen  jjropci'ly  hehl  to  Ik;  within  one  or  other  of 
these  tcniis  :   Hidden  o!)>lructions  in  a  river,  sucli  as  logs, 

:is  liic  s;iviii<;  I'laiiM-  I'xlciitlcd  to  llie  siiiiio  ri-k  iu*  if  the  <>()i)ils  hud  beeji 
oil  hoard  llit>  ship. 

••  i;a\t.'!'  V.  J.claiid.  Al)l>.  Adiii.  lil^  (ISIS);  ,Toii»s  v.  Pitclicr.  :$  St.  & 
V.  \X>  (is;!;!;. 

■••1  The  I'aviiriic.  2  Hi-s.  .■>(!_'  d'-i;',). 

■^^'I'hc  \Vaih;iii.l:i()|)iii.  .Mty  (i"ii.  11!)  (ls(i;i). 

M  I'owlcr  V.  l)avcii|iorl.  21  'ri'x.  (J-Ji!  (ls.-)S):  Mar>h  v.  ISlylho,  1  Mc- 
Cord.;:(;i)  (is-.>|):   Marsh  v.  I'.lyth.  1    N.  iS;  .Me.  170  (ISIS). 

■■t  'I'lic  Ivfcsidf.  2  Sum.  r>()7  (ISliT):  Haxtcr  v.  Lclaiid.  1  Ahh.  Adiii.  :U8 
(IStS):  (Jcaisc  V.  liiipi's.  I  Siira,:;iu'.  H;!!  (l.s,")!'.);  Story  on  Bail'iiciits,  § 
512;  ;>  Kent.  2l(i:  Tin'  Niaijara  v.  Conies.  21  How.  7  (1S.">S) ;  Tiickcriiiaii 
V.  Stcpii'Mir;  iKic.  'rraiisporlatioii  Co..  ;)2  \.  .1.  ("Law)  :)21  (lSt)7);  Giliiiore 
V.  Cariiiaii.  1  S.  I'C:  M.  27'.l  (isC;);  Tiiriiry  v.  Wilson,  7  Yi'r<r.  :\W 
(is;},"));  (iordoii  v.  I'.uchaiiaii.  .">  Vcr;:'.  71  (is;!:i);  Joliusoii  v.  Triar,  4 
Yci-i,'.  -IS  (ls;i;{);  Hill  v.  Siiir;;('oii.  2S  Mo.  ;{2;i  (is.'ill):  Tysoii  v.  .Moore, 
f)!')  Harl).  112  (1S7()).  Tin;  phrase  ilie  ••  d;ui;J,'ers  of  tlie  seas  ""  has  been 
detiai'd  in  a  very  late  eas(>  as  iiieliidiii,';  all  iiiiavoidalile  accidents  from 
wliifh  eoniiiK.n  carriers  i)y  the  i;eiieral  lav,  are  not  cxeiiscd  unless  they 
ari>e  fiiiin  '.he  act  of  (Unl.  WikmIs.  .J.,  in  Dihble  v.  Moi'u'aii.  1  Woods, 
4()(;  (1S71).  ;;iid  see  Friend  v.  Woods.  C  (irall.  IS!)  (ISl!)):  hut  this  dehni- 
tion  is  niiieh  loo  broad  and  is  not  ihe  law. 

•'"''■■  Till s  phra-e  iuii;ht  eertainly  lie  construed  to  ine.iii  danfj,'ers  which 
arise  on  tiic  sea.  and  it  would  thciiinchidc  evei'y  hazard  and  dani^er  from 
Ihe  bcniniiintc  to  tiie  end  of  l!ie  vnya'^e  of  whatever  kind.  But  the  in- 
clination oT  the  courts  is  to  inieipret  it  as  ineludiiii;-  only  dan::;ei's  which 
arise  from  the  action  of  the  elemcnls.  and  Iliose  incident  to  that  cause, 
rather  than  to  include  all  that  arise  nimii  the  sea."  Morrill  v.  Arey,  3 
Ware.  215  (is,-)'.)). 

■"■«  McArihiir  v.  Scars.  21  Wend.  1!!()  (is:!!)). 


m 


-*immimmKi^~ 


liif: 


11 


230 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  CAUKIKKS. 


[cii.  Vlll. 


rocks,  snags  and  the  liUo,  Avliidi  i)rud('iu'0  couid  lu'itlior 
discover  nor  avoid;'"'  a  dense  fog : '"'  a  delleclion  of  the 
compass  from  accidental  or  unfor<'scen  causes  :''  liic  ca- 
rceninir  of  a  vessel  after  her  arrival  at  a  wharf  hv  whieh 
water  enters  her  ports;""  boisterous  weather,  adverse 
Avinds  and  low  tides,  causing  dolay  ;'"  a  sudden  s(|iiall  or 
gust  of  wintl;"-  the  "blowing'"  of  a  vessel,'"'  or  the  o[)en- 

^'Tiirm-y  v.  Wilson.  7  Yi-rj,'.  ;il()  (isr.) ;  The  KcoUuk.  1  IJi.-s.  '<±1 
(1S0()) ;  Ttio  Fiivoritc,  2  IJis>.  502  (1S7I) ;  Ki'dpalli  v.  Viiuj>'li:iiu  .')2  IJiirl). 
4Wt  riSdS).  iiltiniuHl  IS  \.  V.  (•,:>:>  (ISVI);  Villi  llriii  V.  Tayldi-.  7  \U>U. 
201  (ISI4);  2  J.a.  Aiiii.r»s7  (lsi7;;  Hoycc  v.  Wclcli. .")  La.  Ann.  (i2:i  (^ls,-.o). 
Tlie  rule  whicli  iinpiilcs  cart'li'ssiicss  to  a  caplalii  whose  boat  siiilios  a 
known  rock  or  shoal,  unlc-s  (hlvn  by  a  icinpcsl  (Abbott  on  Siiippnij^, 
258),  is  only  apiilii'ablc  to  the  navigation  of  the  ocean,  where  the  rocks 
and  shoals  are  marked  upon  inajis  ami  may  be  avoided,  and  does  not  ap- 
ply to  the  naviiiation  of  the  \\('>terii  rivers.  Tlii'ie  each  case  must  hi; 
goveriKMl  by  its  own  circumsta:ices.  and  be  tested  by  the  cours(>  usually 
pursued  by  slvilfiil  jiilots  In  sneh  cases.  Collier  v.  N'aleiitliu'.  II  .Mo.  2i)l) 
(184S). 

*"  ]Jiit  ii  shljiper  is  not  excused  by  the  presence  of  a  dense  fo^.  al- 
thouj^li  it  isadau<;er  of  navi;j:atioii.  if  the  loss  occur  through  iiejiliij-enco 
or  want  of  care — as  while  riinninji  at  a  hlj>h  rate  of  speed.  The  JJocket, 
1  Blss.  :{54  (ISOO) ;  The  Portsmouth.  U  Wall.  (;S2  (ISOii). 

•'■'But  it  must  bo  clearly  shown  that  the  ollicers  of  the  vessel  iiuder- 
Ktood  and  discharj^ed  their  full  duty.     The  Rocket,  1  IJiss.  :{54  (18(10). 

•'  A  vessel  laden  wl'h  ^-of^ds  arrivetl  in  port  and  was  taken  into  a  dock 
to  discharge  her  car;;o.  I''or  this  i)iiri)o>e  she  was  fastened  by  tackle  on 
the  one  side  to  a  loaded  ligiiter  lyinu;  (Uitsidc  her.  and  on  the  other  to  a 
barge  lying  between  her  anil  the  wharf.  The  crew  was  ilischarged  ex- 
eejit  the  mate,  and  lumpers  were  being  emiiloyed  in  unloading  her, 
when  the  tackle  broke  whereby  she  was  fasteneil  to  the  lighler.  and  in 
conse{(uenee  she  canted  over,  water  got  into  her  i)oi'ts,  and  the  goods 
Btill  on  board  were  (lamaged :  //(/»/.  that  this  was  a  loss  within  the  ex- 
<e[)tion  in  the  bill  of  lading  of  '•ail  and  every  the  dangers  and  accidents 
of  the  se..s  and  navigation.''    T, auric  v.  Douglas.  15  31.  I'v:  W.  7ii)  (1S4()). 

«'  I-ewis  v.  The  Success.  IS  La.  .Vnn.  1  (ISfiO). 

6-  Hlocum  v.  Kairchild.  10  AVend.  ;',2!l  (iSliS).  adirmed  711111.  21)2  (lSi:i). 
In  The  Lady  Pike.  2  Biss.  141  (isdl)).  where  a  boat  having  three  loaded 
bargesin  tow  had  approacheil  a  bridge  in  fair  weather  tooclosely  to  back 
or  Htoji,  and  was  drhen  against  a  pier  by  a  sudden  and  unexiiected  gust 
of  wind,  the  owner  was  held  not  liabli!.  Hut  in  a  later  case  ('I'he  Mollie 
Mohler.2Biss.  .505  (1S71).  allirmed  21  Wall.  2;!0  (1S74),  where  tli(!  same 
thing  happened  to  a  steamer,  the  weather  being  tempesluous.  a  differ- 
ent conclusion  was  reached  by  the  same  court. 

«  Crosby  v.  Griimell. !)  X.  Y.  Leg.  Obsr.  2S1 . 


CII.  VIII.]  COX.STUUCTJOX^or  COXTKACTS. 


2;u 


inuf  of  its  scams  caused  by  straiiiiiiir  during  a  storm  ;'■'  a 
loss  occasioned  by  mistakinir  a  shore  liu'lit  on  a  dark  and 
stormy  night ;'''  damage  done  to  cotton  thread  by  thimi)ness 
of  the  hokl  of  a  vessel,  not  occasioned  l)y  bad  stowage  or 
l)y  any  ncgbgence  of  those  empUjyed  in  the  conveyance  of 
the  goods.''" 

Damaii'e^bv  "  sweatiniTi"  of  the'cariro  is  within  these  ex- 
cent  ions,  iiut  not  if  it  has  arisen  bv  neirliu'ent  stowaiie,  of 
which  the  case  of  The  Slur  of  Hope '^''  \^  an  example.  In 
this  case  nuts  in  bags  and  l>oxes  were  shipped  at  New  York 
to  be  deliveicd  at  8an  Francisco,  It  ^Yas  shown  on  the 
trial  that  if  nuls  are  stowed  in  the  hold  on  this  voyage  they 
are  vcrv  liable  to  be  injured  bv  sweat  :  that  it  is  the  almost 
invariable  practice  to  carrv  then)  in  the  cabin  or  cabin  state- 
roonis,  and  to  enter  them  on  the  bill  of  lading  as  to  be  thus 
carried  ;  and  that  if  they  are  carried  in  the  hold  they  arc 
sometimes  inclosed  in  water-tight  oil-casks  in  order  to  keep 
them  in  proper  condition.  The  packages  in  this  case  were 
all  marked  "  in  cabin  stute-rooiu."  The  contract  of  the 
bill  of  lading  was  that  the  goods  should  be  delivered  in  San 
Francisco  "  in  good  order  and  condition,  dangers  of  the 
seas,  lire  and  collision  excepted."  The  goods  were  placed 
in  the  hold  without  notice  to  the  shi^jpers,  and  were  damaged 
on  the  voyage  by  sweating.  It  Avas  held  b}'  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  that  in  view  of  the  almost  inva- 
riable j)ractice  as  to  the  stowage  of  nuts  on  this  voyage  ;  of 
the  well  known  fa<t  that  if  stowed  in  the  hold  they  are  ex- 
tri'mcly  lial)li!  to  be  injured  by  sweat,  and  of  the  marks  and 

*^  Hic'li  V.  I.iimlicrt.  I'-  How.  :il7  (Is.M);  but  s^oc  Be.-xrse  v.  Kopes,  1 
SprMu-iu'.  ;>:!!  (IS.")!".). 

C'Tli.'.liiiiiiUu  I'aloii.  1  Hiss.  15  (ls:>2). 

•^  ••  No  il«)iil)t  the  miiHtial  (.liiriitidii  t»f  the  voyag'e  on  aceoiiiit  of  toin- 
lii'sUioiw  wi'.'itlii'i'  and  adverse  wiiuls  in  connection  with  tlio  faet  that  it 
\\a<  line  in  wliicli  llie  ship  passed  from  a  northern  to  a  s(intliorn  latitude, 
and  in  a  season  of  llie  year  \\  iiere  tlie  i'lian<i'e  from  a  eold  to  a  warm  cli- 
mati-  nnist  iiavo  Ixsen  considerable.  j;i-eatly  increased  the  dampness,  and 
also  the  inlliunee  of  it  upon  j^'oods  liable  to  damage  from  that  cause." 
ClarU  V.   r,aniw(dl.  !-.>  How.  Ill  (.ISol). 

«■  17  Wall.  «r)I    (.isriij. 


m 


2n2 


THK  CONTRACTS  OF  CAUKIICRS. 


[ni.  vm. 


i^ " 


I-  . 


diivctioiis  oil  llio  pai'kiifxos  in  (]nosti()n  in  tliis  (•i(S(\  il  wms 
culpahlc  iH'ii'lijXi^iH'o  in  the  niiislcr  of  the  vessel  to  slow 
tlieiu  in  the  hold,  and  tliut  the  vessel  was  liable  aecordiniily. 

A  loss  by  a  jettison  occasioned  by  a  "pei'il  of  the  s(>a"  is 
a  loss  by  a  "  ])eril  of  the  sea."  In  such  case  the  sea-peril  is 
deemed  the  i)ro.\iniate  cause  of  tlie  loss.  But  if  a  jettison 
of  a  cin'ijo  IxH'omes  necessary  in  conse(]uence  of  any  fault 
or  breach  of  contract  by  the  master  oi-  owners,  oi-  of  tlie 
unseawoitliiness  of  the  vessel,  the  jettison  is  attributable  to 
that  fi.ult  or  breach  of  contract,  and  not  to  the  sea-|)ei'il, 
thoui>li  that  may  also  bo  ]iresent   and  enter   into  the  case.'^'* 

Is  a  collision  a  "  dauijer  of  naviiration  ?  "  The  weiuht  of 
authority  answers  this  (]uestion  in  the  atHrmaliv(>,  but  fail- 
ing to  make  any  iljstinction  in  the  cases,  remains  inconclu- 
sive. The  St.  Louis,  Cinciimati  and  Chicago,  three  river 
boats,  stall  from  different  points  at  the  same  time,  carry- 
hig  i)oxcs  of  tobacco,  the  [)rop(M'ty  of  A.  The  liills  of 
ladiiiij:;  in  each  case  ai'e  alik(\  (\\c<>ptin<r  "  the  dangers  of  the 
river  and  navigation."  In  each  case  the  pro})erty  is  not  do- 
livered  and  A  institutes  three  separate  suits  against  t]i(>  re- 
spective boats.  The  St.  Louis  answers,  sdting  u])  the 
exception  in  the  bill  of  lading,  and  alleging  that  at  a  bend 
in  the  river  during  a  heavy  fog  she  collided  with  The  Cin- 
cinnati and  was  sunk,  neither  boat  l)cing  in  fault  and  cvcm'v- 
thing  having  been  done  l)y  the  otlicers  on  each  boat  to  pre- 
vent the  collision.  This  allegation  being  proved  is  held  a 
sudicient  answer  to  the  action.''''  In  the  proceeding  against 
The  Chi<'ago  the   bill  of  lading  with  its  conditions  ai'c  pro- 

''**  Liiwiviicc  V.  Miiitiirii.  17  How.  100  (is.")!);  'i'lic  ^o^t^ln()lltll.  2  Miss, 
no  (ISOS),  !)  Willi.  (is-_>  (ISOD);  'I'ho  Mihv:uik(>p  IJcllc.  2  lii.-s.  i;i7  (ISOD), 
s.  v.,  Kuy  V.  The  Mihviiiikpo  Px'llc,  IS  Am.  L.  T.  ]U'\\  :>11 ;  Xcmoiirs  v. 
Vamo,  1!)  How.  ]()2  (lS.")(i):  Crosliy  v.  Fiirli.  12  Coiui.  )10  ;I^:!S). 
When' tlio  vessel  ran  atiroiinil  ill  sailiii;;  up  tlie  liailior  in  iniisiiit  of  .-i 
])ilot  hoal.  and  the  niasier  broke  open  heavy  casks  ol'  li(|ii(ii-  lo  lii^lucn 
tlie  vessel.  inst(>a(l(i£  throwiiij;- tiieiii  oveilioanl.  ii  wa<  held  thai  the  loss 
nii,<;hi  under  the  cireninslanees  he  reuai-ilcd  a>  a  •■peril  of  the  sea." 
Van  Syekel  v.  The  Ewiiiii'.  Crahlx'.  lO.')  (  ls|Oj. 

«■'  Plaisted  V.  l^osioii  \-c.  Xavipitioii  Co..  27  Me.  l:;2  nsi7)  :  'I'lie  New 
-Jersey,  Olcutt.  Ill  OSKi);  ."\lar>li  v.  Hlyllic.  I  Met 'ord.  ;;(i;i  ilS21). 


en.  VIII.]  rONSTUUCTION  OK  CONTKAOTS. 


283 


diK'cd,  iuul  the  loss  of  tlio  properly  by  a  collision  with  The 
Ciiicinniitl  shown.  The  evidciico  shows  ihiil  the  collision 
was  caused  hy  the  nei^liii'ence  of  the  defendant's  otHcers  in 
nianau:in<r  tlie  Ixjat,  and  could  have  been  avoided  I»y  the  ex- 
ercise of  due  care.  A  verdict  for  the  phiiiilifl',  A,  is  held  (!or- 
rect.™  In  tin;  i)roceedin_i>;  aiiainst  The  Cincinnati  tlu^  i)re- 
j)()nderance  of  testimony  establishes  tliat  tin;  lo-.s  arose 
throuirh  th(!  boat  beinir  run  tlown  by  the  nci^liirence  of  the 
olHccrs  of  The  ('hicairoi  but  without  the  fault  of  the  defend- 
ant. The  bill  of  ladinu;  is  in  form  as  in  the  other  cases. 
The  defenilant  has  judiiinent.''  In  tlie  tirst  and  second  of 
these  cases  the  conclusions  rea<'hed  are  clearly  correct — be- 
<-ausc  the  dan;^'er  of  aci'idenlal  collision  is  known  to  all  who 
<ro  to  sea  in  ships  and  because^  of  the  oft-re[)eated  principle 
that  the  exceptions  in  a  bill  of  ladinu"  can  not  include  ncjrli- 
li'ent  ads.  Uiit  the  third  case,  thouuh  sup]>orted  by  all  the 
American  autlioi'ities,  can  hardly  stand.  N'ot  only  is  it  ditti- 
cult  to  bi'ini;'  it  within  the  definition  of  the  phrase  u^ed,  but 
tlie  I'cason  for  iiie  exception  is  alto_i>ether  sibsent.  The  ex- 
ception was  allowed  to  a  carrier  to  jjrotect  him  from  the 
c(inse(|uence  of  a  disaster  orcnriiii!.>'  in  sjjite  of  his  vi;Llilance, 
and  which  would  swee])  away  at  om^  time  his  own  as  well  as 
his  ciniiloyer's  property.      Uut  for  the  neu'liu'cnt  handling  of 

'"  I.lciyd  V.  (ii'iiiTiil  Iron  Scivw  ^c.  Co..  :!  II.  i<:  <\  -JS I :  lO.liir.  (N.  S.) 
<!(;i :  ;t:!  I,.  ,1.  \]\.  •JC,!):  12  W.  K.  SS:2:  id  I,.  T.  (N.  S.)  r^;  (isiro  :  Tlie 
city  iif  Norwich.  ;<  Hcii.  T)7')  flS(ill);  (Jrill  v.  (Jciicral  Ii'oii  Screw  Ac.  (Jo., 
I,,  i;.  I  C.  I'.  COD:  IJ.Iiir.  (\.  S.)  7i>7:  :!.-)  h.  ,)..  ('.  1'.  :i-Jl  :  It  W.  R.  8!):$ 
(ISDin.  .•itliniicd  on  npp.-n!.  L.  U.IIC.  I'.  I7(i;  :i7L.  .)..('.  P. -JO,-):  Id  VV. 
]{.  711D:  IS  h.  T.  (\.  s.)  !>r.  (iscs). 

■'Van  llcrn  v.  Taylor.  7  l?ol>. -JOl  (lSin:-J  I,a.  Ann.  5S7  (1S47); 
Wliitcsiilc<  V.  Tliurlkill.  1-'  S.  iS:  M.  .V.i;)  (\>  ;•.)).  In  Hays  v.  Kennedy.  It 
I'a.  St.  ;>7S  (isdl).;!  tii'ni  sliipped  i;-"'id-i  iijiou  a  rivci'  stea'iilioal,  11i<^ 
owner-;  of  wliicli  as  coMMiion  cari'iers  contiacird  liy  llidf  till  of  Iiidini!; 
to  delivei-  al  the  place  of  destination  safely  and  in  n'ood  oi-dcr.  ■•  iIk'  mii- 
avoiiialile  danneri  of  the  ri\er.  navigation  and  life  exci'pted."  The  boat 
was  lun  into  and  suid>.  and  the  ivi'ods  lost,  wilhoni  fault  on  its  pail,  hnt 
liy  leaxiii  of  carelessness  on  the  pari  of  the  other.  In  an  iictjoii  against  the 
owners  to  recover  tln^  value  of  the  ijoods.  it  was  held  that  the  loss  was 
covered  by  the  exception  in  the  bill  of  ladin;;-  !"id  Hin  Hie  plaintiffs 
were  not  enlilied  to  recover. 


■A 
I 


ij 


fii' 


' 


2;5i 


TIIK  COXTIJACTS  OF  CAUKIKIIS. 


[cif.  vrii. 


h! 


1 1 


If 


tlio  vcssol  ciiu.siiig  the  iiijiiiT,  tlu^  iiijiii'cd  ciin-icr  liiinsclf  has 
his  ri'iiicily  over.  'I'lic  Aiiicriciiii  cases  contaiii  no  niciilioii 
of  l!iis  disliiK'tion,  (liomili  in  a  ciisc  (Iccidcd  in  ICnu'liuid  at 
Uw  Ix'uinninii"  of  this  century  whei'e  a  h)ss  had  iteen  caused 
by  an  unav()idal)U'  collision,  and  which  seems  t(»  havo 
escaped  the  notice  of  succecHJinii'  judtrcs,  Lord  Kknyon 
said  "that,  if  the  defendants  had  heen  ji'uilly  of  any  nei:li- 
gence  and  it  could  have  l)een  proved  that  the  accident  could 
have  heen  ])ivv{'nted,  they  would  ceitainly  have  heen  lial)le, 
but  they  were  exempt  by  the  condition  of  the  bill  of  lading 
from  misfortunes  happening  tluring  (lie  voyage  which  hu- 
man prudence  could  not  guard  against  —  against  accitlents 
hapi)ening  without  fault  in  either  jiarty."  '^  Although  Lord 
Kknvon's  judiiinent  is  vi'rv  obscurely  reported,  it  must  be 
taken  for  granted  that  the  parties  whom  he  was  of  opinion 
must  be  free  from  faidt  were  tlu'  masters  of  the  vessels 
which  collided. 

Second.  As  to  what  are  not  within  these  excei)tions.  And 
lirst  it  must  be  noticed  that  no  losses,  however  accidental, 
can  be  brought  within  the  exeei)tions,  so  as  to  excuse  the  car- 
rier, whit'h  might  have  been  avoided  by  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cretion and  foresight.''     In  a  very  early  case '^  the  owner  of 

'^  IJiillcr  V.  Fislicr, !!  I<:si).  (;7  (I SOU). 

"Williams  V.  Hnuwoii.  1  Miirpli.  (X.  ('.)  ti:  (l>^l(lj;  Sixmuht  v.  Daj,'- 
gctt,  2  Vt.  ',f2  (lS2:))i  .Jones  V.  I'ltelicr.  :'.  St.  i!^  1'.  Ki.'.  (ISIiltl:  Fair- 
chilil  v.  Slociii:.,  r.»  Wend.  ;i2!)  (ls;;s):  Uilildo  v.  Mi)i;,'aM.  1  Wouds.  |()(! 
(l.S7;i);  Tli(i  Casco,  Davcis.  IS!  (1S(2);  Tlie  Kt'hccca.  1  Waiv,  1S,S 
(IS;tl ) ;  Cliiistciisoii  V.  AniiTicaii  Kxprcss  ( 'o.,  l.'i  Minn.  27(1  (1S7(I).  Kun- 
niiifi;  against  a  caix- or  continent  can  not  lie  lernieil  an  ••  aeeideni  of  the, 
Kca,"  wliieh  i)f(i|)er  foresijjlit  and  sl<ill  in  the  (•(iniiu.viidiiiijj  ollieei-  ini<;lit 
liave  avoided.  Ba/.in  v.  Steamship  ('o.,;{  Wail.  .If.  221i  flsr)7).  A  loss 
()c<'asioned  by  tin;  ma>ter  of  a  steamer  atiemplin<>'  to  enUi- a  poi't  in  a 
dense  fog,  he  not  heini;;  oomiielied  by  any  e.\igene\  to  inaKe  the  attempt,, 
will  not  he  attributed  to  '•  perils  of  the  sea."     'Die  Costa  Jtiea,  ;'  Sawy. 

5;{8  (is7r)). 

^■'  Williams  v.  I5ranson,  supra.  ••  N'or  indcn'd  is  every  loss  in'oeeedinu; 
from  a  natural  cause  to  be  considered  as  happening;  by  a  [danger  of  the. 
river]  for  if  a  ship  perish  in  constMinence  of  striking  against  a  rock  or 
Bliallow  tii(!  I'ii-einnslances  under  which  tlu^  event  takes  plai'(>  nnist  bo 
considered  in  order  to  determine  whether  it  happened  by  a  [danger  of 


en.  viii.] 


CONSTIUKTION  OK  CONTUACTH, 


235 


ii  boat  was  held  liahlc  for  the  loss  of  goods  caiiscMl  by  liis 
skippci-  Iiavin;x  altciupU'tl  to  ptiss  u  daniicrous  bend  in  the 
river  (Uirinir  a  fi-cshct,  aUiiouiiii  by  {\w  bill  of  ladiiijr  llio 
'«  dangers  of  iiaviiialioii  "  were  excepted  from  his  uiider- 
taivinjjT.  So  where  !i  boat  upon  the  Oliio  I'iver  I'an  upon  ti 
stone  and  luioeked  a  hoU'  in  its  hull,  it  was  held  that 
tlu!  carrier  was  not  (lis('har<i:ed  fi'oni  lial»ility  by  virliii'  of 
the  clause  in  the  bill  of  ladini;  "  the  danj^ers  of  the  river 
only  excepteil,"  l)nt  that  in  order  to  relieve  himself  from 
responsibility  it  was  incumbent  on  him  to  prove  that  due 
dili<;ence  and  proper  skill  wen;  used  to  avoid  the  accident, 
and  that  it  was  unavoidal)le."  An  answer  statin,^'  that 
while  11  bar<;e  was  beinj;  towed  in  the  usual  channel  of  the 
river,  it  stuck  fast,  without  stating  that  the  bar  was  un- 
known, or  could  not  hav(!  been  avoided,  does  not  show  i\ 
loss  from  the  "  unavoitlable  dangers  of  tlie  river.""''  The 
exception  in  a  bill  of  lading  of  "  dangers  of  the  river  which 

the  river]  or  by  tlio  fiiiilt  of  tlie  iiiustcr.  If  tlie  sitiDitioii  of  tlic  I'ock  or 
ghullow  !)('  {iji'iicriilly  known  iiiiil  the  sliip  not  foriu'il  upon  it  l)y  iulvorse 
winils  or  tempests,  the  loss  is  to  l)e  inipiUeil  to  tlie  fault  of  the  master; 
or  if  the  shallow  wim'c  occasioned  by  a  sudileii  and  rcjoent  collection  <>f 
Pftiul  in  a  place  where  ships  could  before  sail  in  safety,  the  loss  is  to  be 
attributed  to  tln5  act  of  (Jod  or  tlu!  perils  of  the  sea."  Taylor.  J.,  in 
Williams  v.  IJranson,  supra.  "  Suppose  for  a  moment  the  snaj^  not  liid- 
den,  or  one  wliich  mij^lit  liave  been  discovered  by  tlie  ripplinj;  of  the 
water;  or  suppose  the  snajr.  thoui;;h  liidden,  yet  known  to  tlic  patrooiis 
of  tlie  rivcM-  craft,  would  an  accident  arisinj^  from  it  constitute  any  ex- 
cuse':' Surely  not.  Or  suppos(>  tlu^  sna^,  thouf^li  new  and  hidden,  to 
have  been  so  weak  that  it  could  not  have  pierced  the  bottom  of  a  sound 
hull.  In  none  of  these  instances  could  it  form  an  excuse  for  the  carrier. 
Aj^ain.  suppose  tlie  sua;;  to  pierce  a  sound  boat,  but,  to  let  in  only  so 
much  water  as  by  dilijifent  exertion  niii^ht  l)e  kept  down,  wonld  the  bare 
nauK^  of  an  accid(Mit  by  a  snaj^  throw  a  mantle  over  nejiliiience  or 
pliield  the  carrier  from  the  cliar;^e  ot  after  inactivity.  Surely  not."' 
Richardson,  J.,  in  Steamboat  Co.  v.  JJason,  Harp.  (S.  0)  202  (1S2-4). 
Where  carriers  provide  that  tlu^y  shall  not  be  liable  for  .inavnidabJe 
dani^ers  of  naviij^atiou,  they  mean  dan.i;ers  that  are  niunoidable  by 
tliem,  sujiiiosiiifj;  that  they  have  exercised  a'A  tlie  precaution,  care  and 
skill  that  the  law  usually  demands  of  coninion  carriers.  Hays  v.  Ken- 
nedy, -tl  I'a.  St.  ;{7S  (ISCl). 

"*  Wliitesides-  v.  Russell,  S  W.  &.  S.  41  (1S44). 

'6  Tlio  Ocean  Wave, ;{  JJis.s.  317  (1S72). 


miiifBmiimiw-""  .-->^'- 


i: 


2;5(5 


TUB  CONTUArTS  OF  CAItltlKKH. 


[nr.  VIM. 


jiro  uimvoidiiblc,"  ivlcjiscs  llio  carrier  from  losses  ciiuscd  hy 
hiddiMi  ol)slruflions  newly  placed  in  the  I'ivcr,  su<'ii  as 
luiiiiaii  fon'si«^h(,  could  not.  discover  and  avoid;  \ml  if  ho 
knows  of  a  \w\v  ohsti'nction  hefore  an  injury  is  caused  hy 
it,  he  must  use*  increasi'd  caution  ;  and  if  h(!  could  In'  any 
means  have  removed  it  he  will  Iw  char<,'eal)le.'' 

Aj^aiu,  if  the  <;oods  he  badly  stowed  or  put  on  <lcck 
without  the  owner's  cons(>nt  the  exceptions  will  not  save  the 
oarrior."'*  Hut  where  a  hill  of  lading;  declan's  (hat  (he 
propei'ty  is  to  he  stowed  on  deck  and  excepts  "perils  of  the 
seas,"  the  exception  must  he  conslrued  with  rcfen'uce  to  the 
particular  atlvcntui-e  which  the;  contract  of  affi'ci;;htnient 
shows  was  contemplat(!(l  hy  the  parties;  and  under  such 
bill  of  ladinj>  the  (juestion  is  not  what  in  other  circumstan- 
ces could  be  deemed  a  "peril  of  (he  sea,"  lint  what  is  to  be 
diHMued  such  when  operatini;'  on  this  vessel  with  this  deck- 
load.'"  Under  what  circumstarices  the  carrier  may  lose  tin; 
benetit  of  the  cxceptictus  in  his  conliait  l)y  delay  or  devia- 
tion has  been  considered  in  a  former  chapter.'"' 

Where  j^oods  ai'c  dama!i,'c(l  by  water  arisini^  from  asi  <'x- 
co[)ted  peril,  it  is  tlie  duty  of  liie  carrier  to  exercise  ordi- 
nary caro  and  diiiirenc<' (o  prevent  the  conse((Ue!ices  of  the 
injury,  and  where  it  woidd  bi-  of  advantaii^e  he  should  open 
tlu!  i)ackai>'e  and  dry  the  ^oods  ;  and  if  such  precautionary 
nuvisures  ai'(*  not  taken  th(i  carrier  will  be  liabh;  for  the; 
loss.**'  ^Vilere  a  sieainboat  in  i^oin:^  throu^'h  an  inland  pas- 
sujyc  j2;round(id  upon  the  rellux  of  the  tide,  and  fell  oxer  so 
that  bilire-water  I'ose  into  the  cal)iM  and  injured  a  box  of 
books,  it^  was  held  tiiat  the  owners  of  the  boat  were  I'cspon- 
eible   for    this   injury,    thoiiu;!!  liie   bill    of  ladini;;  excci)t('d 

"  Gordon  v.  lJii('liiin;in.  ")  Yer:;.  71    (ls;i;!)  ;  .Joliiwon  v.  Kriar,  1   Li.  IS 

(is:!:{). 

"The  lichiMva.  1  Wans  1SS(lS.;i);  '{'lie  ( 'asco,  l^avois,  LSI  (1SI2); 
Tlu!  Newark,  1  IJlatdi.  2(i;{  (ISKI). 

"' LawriMicc  v.  Miiiliirii,  17  Ho>v.   100  (I.Sol). 

>^'A)ilr.  (Jap.  VII. 

'*"  Choiiteaiix  v.  I.cci'li,  IS  I'a.  St..  -JJ  t  (ls:.2) ;  ISinl  v.  Cromwell,  I  Mo. 
81  (1821). 


M. 

I)y 

as 
iiu 

ly 
iiy 

•k 

IK! 

h(! 

lit 


C'll.   VIII.'J  CONSTIMTTION  OI'  fONTKACTS. 


*2'M 


••  (liiiipTs  of  the  iiiiviifMfioii,"  iiiid  liioUL?!)  \\\v  jjrroiindin^  of 
llic  l)oii(  was  iiiiavoidalilc.  as  I  lie  can'icfs  were  liouiid  to  rc- 
niovf  tlic  hooks  froiii  tlic  <'aliiii  hcl'orc  (he  water  rcailicd 
lliciii/-'  If  the  vo\a;;i'  is  In-okcii  up  Iiy  reason  of  IIk;  perils 
of  the  sea,  it  is  the  duty  of  IIk!  eanier  to  trans-ship  the 
cariro  ami  forward  it  to  its  destination,  if  it  can  he  done; 
iind  the  disahlinir  of  the  niasier  and  unite  hy  iniioss  will  net 
exoii(iral<'  iiiiii  from  responsiltililv.''' 

Tlie  <'arrier  to  make  L!:<"<»d  his  defense  is  hound  to  show 
thai  tlie  dainaiic  arose  from  a  sea-peril.  It  is  not  enou;:h 
for  iiini  to  show  that  it  ?///////Miave  arisen  from  lh;it  cause; 
he  must  jirove  that  it  did;'''  and  whetiier  the;  loss  happened 
hy  a  peril  of  tlu^  s(>a  or  Iiy  the  neiiliirenee  of  tin;  carrier  i.s 
in  every  ease  a  <|iiestion  for  the  jury.'*'''  Where  jjoods  arrivo 
in  a  dainaucd  condition  and  it  is  apparent  that  the  daniago 
was  in  a  irreat  pai't  caused  hy  the  carrier's  fault,  tli()Ujj;h  to 
some  extent  would  proiialily  have  heen  caused  hy  the  perils 
of  the  sea  encountered  hy  tlu!  vessel,  hut  to  what  extent  the 
carrier  is  unahle  to  show,  he  will  ho  held  liahle  for  tho 
whole.''"     liut  although  it  app(!urs  that  his  hoiit  was  not  sea- 

x- Stciiiiiltoiit  Co.  V.  Biisoii,  Hiirp.  -iCi  (1S21). 

M  I'licliUi  V.  Tlio  Aiviir;i(l(.,  1  Ami.  L.  J.  ;t:!2.  In  West.  v.  The  Berlin,  IJ 
Iowa.  ");{■!  (IsnC)),  ii  :)ntriict  was  niadu  in  XovcniDcr  for  tlic  innncdliite 
tnuispoitiitioii  of  jfoods  from  DuIkkiuo  to  St.  I'liiil  by  steiiinl)oat,  "  iina- 
voidiildc  (liinfffis  excepted,"  "  witli  tlie  nwiiiil  privllcf^es."  It  was  held 
that  the  eaptaiii  had  a  rij;ht  to  store  the  ^oods  until  spriiifj  if  hy  rtisoii 
of  the  season  the  whole  voyaije  was  tl;eM  impraetieablc,  he  having  car- 
ried them  as  far  as  eould  n^asonahly  he  re(iiiiied. 

^  Hoffman.  .F..  in  Thet'ompla.  •!  Sawy.  i!?"-  (1877). 

"Marsh  v.  IMylh.  1  X.  &  Me.  170  (isi8) ;  llainmond  v.  MeClurc,  1 
Bay,  !l!)  (17!I0);  (iordoii  v.  Biiehanaii,  5  Verg.  71  (1S;W);  Humphreys 
V.  keed,  (!  Whart.  4;r)  (1S41). 

>*  Speyer  V.  The  Mary  Belle  Koherts,  2  Sawy.  1  (1871).  In  deciding 
this  ease  Hoffman.  J.,  gaid:  "The  real  difUeiilty  in  the  case  arises  from 
the  fact,  which,  however,  is  not  conclusively  established,  that  the  cargo 
would  have  sustained  some  damage  even  if  it  had  been  properly  stowed; 
but  how  much  can  not  he  known.  We  an;  thus  forced  to  choose  between 
two  alternatives,  either  to  hold  the  carrier  responsible  for  damages,  a 
part  of  which  he  is  not  accountable  for,  or  else  to  deny  the  shipper  any 
compensation  for  losses  which  in  great  part  was  caused  by  the  carrier's 
fault.    The  former  alternative  must,  in  my  opinion,  be  adopted.    By  hia 


}  ■  I H 


iltrWWMiM.  ■'■ 


2:]H 


TIIF,  roNTUACTS  OF  CAIMMKIIS. 


[('II.  VIII. 


ii'.'J. 


Ml: 


worthy,  yet  the  carrier  limy  show  (liiil  the  loss  was  In  fact 
oct'usloiu'd  hy  tho  excepted  perils  of  the  river  and  not  hy 
the  unseaworthiness  of  tlu!  l)oat,and  iniisl,  liave  happened 
if  that  (h'feet  had  not  existed;  hut,  a  (h'Hncpieney  wliieh 
niiu'lit  hav(!  eontrihutiMl  to  tlie  disaster  oeeasioninir  tli-'  lr)ss, 
or  n«'irii<r(  iK'e  or  eareh-ssness  at  tli(!  time  of  its  oeeiirrinj^ 
whieii  niijrht  have  had  an  ajrciiey  in  proihicinj;  it,  will  ren- 
der him  lial)lo.'*' 

I'mler  an  ordinary  hill  of  ladin<r  tho  eonvcvaneo  and  de- 
I'verv  of  the  <;oods  is  a  condition  precedent  to  the  liability 
of  tho  shipper  of  tho  ^oods  to  pay  frei^rht.  TIhs  clauso 
•'  tho  dangers  of  the  seas  ex<'epted,"  does  not  affect  tho 
question  whothor  freiijlit  has  been  earned  or  not.  Its  effect 
is  only  to  cxoiupt  tho  carrier  from  liability  to  pay  for  tho 
car«;o  Avhon  lost  throuirh  tho  dan«rers  of  tho  seas.  And  un- 
loss  there  is  an  o.ypress  aifreoment  to  the  contrary,  fi'oiiiht 
l)aid  in  advance  may  bo  recovered  back  if  the  voNaji'c  is  not 
performed,  althouj^h  prevented  by  tho  dangers  of  tho  .seas 
and  without  fault. '^'^ 

Subject  to  those  conditions  tho  followinfjj  have  been  held 
not  to  be  •within  thi-so  oxceplions:  A  dampness  or  sweatin.ijf 
of  the  hold  of  a  vessel  and  shown  to  Ix^  the  ordinai'v  aceom- 
paniniont  of  a  voyaire  from  southern  to  northern  ports,  jind 
to  result  not  from  tempestuous  weather  but  from  occult  at- 


-ri 


i  "i 


contract  tlm  oiiniprin'oiiiisod  t«  (Idivcr  tlic  ^joods  in  liko  order  and  con- 
dition as  wlion  received,  nnless  iireveiited  from  so  doin^  ))y  one  of  tlie 
exeopted  |)erils.  'I'lie  i'iii';jo  Ix'inij  found  to  he  damaged,  llie  linrden  of 
proof  was  on  him  to  siiow  tliat  the  loss  was  occasioned  l)y  (nie  of  tlie 
canses  which  by  law  and  the  terms  of  his  contract  afford  an  excnse  for 
its  non-i)erformance.  It  is  not  onon<rli  that  he  show  tliat  a  i)art  of  the 
damage  was  so  caiis(!d  while  the  remainder  was  caused  hy  his  own  neg- 
ligence. To  excuse  himself  for  that  jmrtion  of  the  loss  for  which  he  is  not 
liahle  he  must  show  how  much  that  i)ortion  is;  and  unalih^  to  exonerate 
himself  in  ti>to  he  should  establish  the  degree  and  (sxlent  of  the  exoner- 
ntion  to  which  he  is  entitled.  If  he  falls  to  do  this,  it  seems  to  me  that 
lie  must  be  held  responsible  for  the  whole  damage."' 

**■  Collier  V.  Valentine.  11  Mo.  -I'M  (1S|S). 

•«  Phelps  V.  AVilliamson,  '>  Sandf.  578,  s.  c,  10  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obsr.  272 
(1852). 


I  : 


hH 


III. 


CM.  VIM.]  rONSTUlTTION  OI'  CONTII.ACTS. 


2;i9 


iiiosplicric  ciiuscs  ;**'  (lie  mcpc  roHiiijj;  of  ii  vessel  in  ii  cross 
.sea,  •III  onliimry  iiicideiii  of  eveiT  voyiiije  ;""  ii  mere  lenU 
not  sli(»\vii  to  have  Iteeii  cjiiised  liv  llic  irresistililc^  a<'lioii  of 
tluM'leiiieiits  ;"'  damage  caused  hy  rals"^  or  oilier  veriniii  ;" 
(heft  or  rol)l)erv  unless  |)iraey  on  llie  lii;i:li  seas;''  theft  or 
rcthherv  coniinitted  \>y  persons  eoininj:;  on  hoard  the  ship  hj 
consent  of  the  muster  when  sin*  is  not  on  the  hiirh  seas,  or 
hy  pcM'soiis  on  hoard,  is  not  within  these*  terms  ;''■''  depredii- 
lioiis  on  the  ship's  s(oi-es  or  cari;(>  eoinmitted  hy  her  passen- 
jj^ers  or  crew  in  eonse(|uen('(!  of  a  short  allowance  made 
necessary  hy  the  lenj^th  of  the  voya/^e  ;""  the  hiirratrons  act 
of  the  crew  in  horinuf  holes  in  the  ship  for  the  purpose  of 
.scuttling  her  ;"^  einl)e//,lement ;""  iihmdering  of  the  ship  hj 
a  custom  house  otficer  whilo  in  (thiirgo  of  it  ;'^'''  the  iiiiUilful- 

"'•'  IJiixtor  v.  Lolaiid.  Al)l).  Adiii.  :t|H  (1S|S). 

«"i'lH!  Jtccsidc,  •_'  .Slim.  .->(;;  O^'M). 

>"  Tlic  Kiiiiim  Jolnisoii,  1  Si)nigm',  'y27  (ISOO);  Tiie  Comptii,  t  Ssvwy. 
:{7.-.  (1S77). 

'■'«Tlif'lsiilH"llii,  H  Mon.  l:»!)  (is;.'));  Ivav  v.  Wlioclcr.  ;?(!  L.  J.  C.  V.  ISO, 
L.  K.  2  C.  I'.  :{(>2,  1.')  W.  K.  11)5.  Hi  I,.  T.  (\.  S.)  W,  (lS(17j  ;  I.avcn.iii  v. 
Dniry,  i'l  L.  .1.  Kx.  It.  S  Kx.  l(i(i.  Id  .liir.  1021  (lsr)2).  Wlicrc  llic  liiastcr 
of  11  v(!ss('l  rci'oived  skins  to  l»u  carried  from  N'ew  Orleans  to  New  York, 
tliere  to  he  delivered  in  ;^ood  order,  the  *•  dangers  of  the  seas  "  ex- 
c'oi)ted,  and  the  skins  were  injured  l>y  rat>.  tlu!  court  refused  to  admit 
o'.ideiu'c  to  show  that  uccordin;^  to  merctintilt'  usage  and  iiiidcfstandiiig 
injuries  hy  rats  were  considered  and  treated  as  dangers  of  the  sea. 
Ay  mar  v.  Aslor.  (i  Cow.  2(i(;  (1S2()). 

'•'■''  Cockroaches  ato  off  and  defaced  the  paper  lahels  pasted  on  the  oiit- 
side  covering  of  chests  of  tea.  which  injury  emliar;assed  tin;  assortment 
iind  delivery  of  the  goods  to  tlu?  consignees  and  dei)reciateil  their  miirket 
value.  Jlild,  thai  the  damages  were  not  the  result  of  a  '■  peril  of  the  sea"' 
or  of  any  of  the  "dangers  or  accidents  of  navigation."  within  anexcei)tioii 
to  that  effect  in  a  hill  of  lading  hut  were  damages  for  which  the  ship  and 
its  owners  wen^  liahle  as  insurers  of  the  safe  conveyance  of  the  cargo. 
The  Miletus. .")  IJlatchf.  ;t:{.)  (ISOti). 

'•'*Klng  V.  Slieplierd,  ;t  Story,  I14!t  (IStl) ;  Temlerden  on  Shipping,  pt. 
I?,  c.  :t,  §  !).  p.  214;  Ahhott  on  Sliii)ping.  i)t.  ;!,  o.  4,  §  1,  p.  2.j2. 

'■'■''  King  V.  Shepherd,  :»  Story,  ;!4!)  (1S44). 

'•«The  Gold  Hunter,  Hlatdif.  &  II.IJOO  (is;i2). 

'■"  The  Chasea,  L.  K.  4  Adin.  440,  2:5  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  aS.  44  L.  J.  Adm.  17 
(1S7.5). 

'«  Iving  V.  Shepherd.  S  Story,  :U!)  (1844). 

'•"  Schieffelin  v.  Harvey,  Antli.  5(5,  (5  Johns.  170  (1810), 


n- 


■'Wj7i.irfHWiiiii  r. 


i    1 


Hk-s 


240 


TlIK  CONTRACTS  OF  CAKlllERS. 


[CII.  VIII, 


ncss  of  the  i)il()t  :'""  llif  desertion  or  insubonliiiiilion  of  s(  ;i- 
an  iiceideiilal  lire:"-'  llie  explosion  of  a  boiler  of  a 


men 

.stoanislii[)  ;'"•  low  water  in  a  river,'"  or  at  the  entran<e  to  a 

lmrI)or;'-"'    the  shifting  of    a  Ixioy  ; ""'    an  injury   to  ea:,<>-o 

iw  Ilarv.v  V.  I'ik^-.  N.  ('.  Term  It<'i).  S2.  7  Am.  Dcf.  (i'.is  (1S17). 

i'!'71ic  ktlicl.  :<  IJiMi.  i:.l   (1S71). 

i"-'(;ilm(irc  V.  iaiiiiaii.  1  S.  A  M.  "J"!!  (1M:'.).  Sliarkcy.  <'.  J.:  -It  is 
not  ii  (laiijjcr  wlilcli  |irin'i'i"ls  from  or  is  iicciili.ir  to  tlic  \i\ov.  It  aiiscs 
fnMii  llic  means  M<c(l  in  proiu'llin;;' till-  l)oat.  .lud  not  from  any  oltstacic 
or  imiM'iiimciit  in  liic  river.  'i'lH-  lioat  itself  is  llie  deposilory  of  tlie 
ii"-('iit  wliieli  imxliices  its  own  (Ieslri:etioii.  If  llie  owner  eliooses  to  em- 
l)lov  tliis  a;;i'ii!  lie  can  not  with  iiroiifiely  say  lliat  it  is  prodnetiv.'  of  a 
dan;;-er  ineident  lotlie  navij^atioii  of  the  river.  This  is  a  danger  pro- 
duced by  Iiunian  ;ig"iicy:  il  may  Ix'  connteraetod  hyhnman  sa<;acity  and 
juaichMice.""  See  also  Garrison  v.  Memphis  Ins.  (."o.,  1!)  How.  (I'.  S.)  .U'i 
(IS.'Ki);  Merrill  v.  Arey.  .'{  Ware.  21.".  (IS.V.l);  ("ox  v.  I'eterson,  HO  Ala. 
(il)S  (1S,'7) ;  I'nion  Mnltial  Ins.  ('o.  v.  Indianajxilis  itc.  Jt.  ('o.,l  Disney. 
480  (18.J7).  It  is  held  in  Alabama  that  a  carrier  may  sliow  by  parol  thai 
an  exception  of  "•  dan,::;ers  of  tlie  river"  as  en\bodied  In  a  bill  of  ladin;^ 
l)y  nsatct'  smd  custom  inclndes  dan^^ers  of  lire.  Jliblcr  v.  McCartney.  ;U 
Ala.  ."'01  (1S.">S) ;  Sampson  v.  (ia/,zam,  ('.  I'ort.  121!  (1 '"^•5''^) ;  •"^>'t'll  v.  Mil- 
ler, Id.  :'.07  (is;i7):  K/./.ell  v.  Knoiisli,  id.  :{11  (ls:$7);  .McCliirc  v.  Cox, 
:V2  Ala.  017  (lsr)S) :  Jones  v.  Pitcher,  W  St.  «S;  V.  ]:{.'•  (ISIW).  IJnt  this  is 
contrary  to  the  weij;ht  of  auUiortty.     See  (i>U<\  Cap.  V,§  12.">. 

1"''  The  Mohawl;,  S  Wall.  1."j:{  (l.^dS),  For  perils  arisinj;  on  the  sea  are 
not  necessarily  ix'i'ils  arisini;  from  the  sea.  The  Edwin.  1  Spra;;ii(!  477 
(185!))  ;  Bulkiey  v.  Xanmkeak  Steam  Cotton  Co.  1  Cliff.  222  (18.")!)),  .s.c, 
oi\  appeal.  2 1  lIo\v.3S(J  (1800),  co/Ura,  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  FeiKlrioh,;W 
Ind.  159  (1871). 

^"*  Daiif^er  of  navigation  does  not  mean  want  of  navigation.  Cowley 
V.  Davidson,  11?  Minn.  !t2  (1808).  " 'J'he  obligation  of  this  common 
carrier  under  this  hill  of  lading  was  to  deliver  the  goods  at  Shreveport. 
without  unnecessary  delay,  in  good  order  and  condition,  unto  the  con- 
signees or  assigns,  tln-y  paying  the  spc^citied  freight  and  no  more,  the 
dangers  of  the  river  and  lire  only  excepted.  T-o\v  water  is  not  to  be 
classed  among  the  dangers  of  the  river  which  absolve  the  carrier  from 
this  conventional  obligation.""  llatchett  v.  The  Compronuse.  12  La. 
Anp.  78:5  (1857);  Jiroadwell  v.  IJuth'r,  1  Newb.  171.  G  McLean,  2!)0 
(1854);  Mahon  v.  The  Olive  Branch,  18  La.  Ann.  107  (1800).  An  ex- 
ception of  "dangers  of  *'ie  river ""  will  not  cover  the  case  of  a  less  of 
goods  by  fire  in  a  warehouse  wlnu'c  they  had  been  dejjosited  by  the  car- 
rier Oh  account  of  low  w ater  in  the  river  which  j)reventcd  liis  vessel 
from  prosecuting  tlu!  voyage  to  tlie  place  of  destination.  Cox  v.  Peter- 
8on,  ;50  Ala.  G08  (18.57). 

iM  Transportation  Co.  v.  Downer,  11  Wall,  12!)  (1870). 

"«  Keeves  v.  Waterman,  2  Speers,  197  (1843). 


I  M''  «    '  i 


■■'^^-.  ' 


CII.    VIM.] 


("ON'STRUCTION  Or  CONTRACTS. 


241 


occ.'isioiu'd   by  coiituct   with  other  carifo  ;'""  ov  by  want  of 
vciitihitioii."" 

In  'Lite  J\tfn'(i,^"''  tho  niaslcr  of  a  North  (icrniiui  vessel 
under  a  North  Clerinan  ehartcr  parly,  uave  a  I)ill  of  hidiiiLi' 
for  u'oods  sliip[)ed  on  l)()ar(l  his  vessel,  in  South  America, 
as  i)art  of  a  general  caruo  to  l)c  delivered  in  North  (Jer- 
inany  to  Kniilish  eonsiirnees.  The  Enulish  lanunaue,  nionev 
and  weiiiiils  were  used  in  the  l»ill  of  ladinii',  which  contained 
the  proviso  "the  danuers  of  the  sea  only  excepted."  'I'he 
niastt'r  of  the  vessel,  on  her  arrival  at  Falmouth,  refused  to 
proccH'd  on  account  of  the  outl)r(>ak  of  war  l)etween  France 
and  (Jermany.  It  wa ,  held  l»y  Sir  Kohkiit  I'hilli.mokk  that 
the  master  was  liable,  oidy  one  event  excusing  him,  which 
event  was  not  present  in  th's  case.  In  Spcncc  r.  Vhml- 
irick,^^"  to  an  action  by  a  ship[)er  of  a  bill  (jf  goods  under 
a  bill  of  lading  for  carrying  goods  to  be  shipped  on  board  a 
ship  lying  at  (Jibralter  and  bound  for  London,  calling  at 
Cadi/  from  (ribralter  to  London,  "  the  act  of  (iod,  and  all 
and  every  other  danger  and  accident  of  the  seas,  rivers 
and  navigation  of  what  nature  and  kind  soever  excepted," 
the  defendant  i)leaded  that  the  ship,  in  the  course  of  her 
voyage  to  London,  called  at  Cadiz,  and  that  the  goods  were 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ottieers  of  customs  of  Cadiz, 
and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  held  at  Cadiz,  ana 
thiit  the  goods  were  by  the  authorities  having  jurisdiction 


'""  Casks  of  blfiU'hing  powder  were  stowed  in  the  hold  of  a  vessel 
a;jainst  the  skin,  without  (hiiinai^e.  Water,  wliieli  came  in  throiij^h  the 
deck  and  water  ways,  readied  tlie  casks  and  wet  their  contents,  whieli 
rotted  tlie  wood  of  the  <'asks.  The  casks  were  stove  by  reason  of  tlii~, 
and  the  bleachinj!;  powder  was  mixed  with  tlie  water,  and  this  water 
reaeluHl  some  bundles  of  bags  and  injured  them.  The  ba;^.^  were  being 
carried  under  a|,bill  of  lading  wliii'h  excepted  the  "dangers  of  the  seas."' 
Held,  that  the  injury  to  the  bags  was  not  caused  by  the  dangers  excepted 
and  that  the  ship  was  liable  for  the  damage.  The  Antoinetta  C, .")  Ben. 
.■)64  (1872) ;  and  see  Daggett  v.  Shaw,  ;5  Mo.  2G4  (18:5:<) ;  The  Freedom. 
L.  K. :{  I'.  C.  .Wt,  24  L.  T.  (X.  S.)  4.-)2  (1S71). 

'"«  The  Freedom,  L.  II.  :{  P.  C.  r)'.»4,24  L.  T.  (X.  S.)  4.-)2  (1871). 

'<»  L.  R.  :«  Adni.  430,24  L.  T.  (N.  S.)  84!»  (1871). 

""  10  Q.  K.  r)17,  11  Jur.  872.  10  L.  J.  Q.  B.  'MW  (1847). 
IG 


jismmi^i- 


11' 


TIIK  CONTUAfTS  OV  (AIJIMKRS. 


Vlll. 


ill  th.'il  liclmlf  aihl  iiccortliiii!;  to  tho  l:i\v  of  Spain,  lawfully 
taken  out  of  tlic  sliii)  and  tlotainod,  without  the  fault  of  tlio 
shipowner,  on  a  eh:ir<^e  wliieli  was  duly  preferred  in  the 
eourt  ;  and  by  a  deerec  of  the  court  inad(^  aeeordin;,'  to  the 
law  of  Spain  were  eonliseiited.  It,  was  held  l»y  the  Court 
of  (Queen's  tJeneh  that  the  loss  was  not  within  any  of  the 
exceptions  in  the  bill  of  ladiiiu,',  but  was  occasioned  by  inev- 
itabUMioecssity,  against  which  the  shipowner  ouiiht  to  have 
l)rovided  by  his  contract,  and  that  the  plea  affordecl  no  an- 
sw'er,  inasmuch  as  it  did  not  allege  any  wrongful  act  or  de- 
fault by  the  shipper,  or  knowledge  by  him  that  the  goods 
were  contraband  at  (^adiz,  nor  that  they  were  taken  to  Cadiz 
by  his  desire. 

§  l(i().  ^^  Ddiiijfrs  of  f/h'  L(i/,i'/' — See  "  Dangei's  of 
Navigation." 

§  1(57.  "'' Dangcr.s  of  the  lio'cv.'" — See  "Hangers  of 
Navigation." 

§  l()S.  "'■  Daugpvx  of  (he  Roftd.s."  —  In  bills  of  lading 
containing  an  exeini)tion  from  "  the  dangers  of  the  seas, 
roads  and  rivers,"  the  word  "  roads"  is  construed  to  mean 
marine  roads.  It  might,  however,  be  held  to  include  roads 
on  land,  but  if  so  it  would  be  restricted  to  those  dangers 
which  a>'e  immediately  caused  Ity  roads,  such  as  the  over- 
turning )f  carriages  in  rough  and  precipitous  i)laces.  Thus 
in  De  Roth  sell  ild  v.  Iio>/af  Mall  Steam  Packet  Coiiijxnn/,^^^ 
where  the  carrier  received  goods  at  Panama  to  be  delivered 
at  Loudon,  "the  act  of  God,  the  Queen's  enemies,  pirates, 
robbers,  tire,  accidents  from  machinery,  boilei-s  and  steam, 
the  dangers  of  the  seas,  roads  and  rivers,  of  what  natuic 
or  kind  soever  excepted,"  and  the  goods  wore;  carried  by 
the  company  across  the  isthmus  of  Panama  to  Chagres, 
where  they  were  shipped  to  Southampton  and  there  placed 
ill  a  railway  truck  whence  they  were  secretly  stolen  in  the 
cours'  of  their  transit  to  London,  it  was  held  that  the  car- 
rier was  liable  notwithstanding  the  exception. 


Ill 


7  Ex.  734,21  L.  J.  Ex.  273  (1852). 


(•II.  viir.] 


('()NS'ria;c;Ti()\  or  con  tkacts, 


24; 


^  !(!!>.  ^^  l>a)i(j('i's  0/  tin',  tSms." — .Sec  "  Daiiiicrs  of  \:iv- 
igiiiion." 

§  170.  "  Dcficit-ncij  ill  QnaiifHij." — Astipulation  in  a 
hill  of  ladiiiir  that  "  any  damair*'  or  deticioncv  in  <iiiantity, 
tlic  consiji'tioc  will  dctiiK't  from  tli(>  bsdanco  of  frciulrl  due 
till!  cari-ici-,"'  does  not  import  a  ^-naranty  that  the  carrier  has 
received  the  wliole  (piantily  of  goods  specilied  theivin,  iioi" 
an  agreement  to  pay  for  any  [)orlion  whicli  maybe  deticient. 
'I'lie  words  "  deliciencv  in  (piantity  "  relate  to  the  property 
shipped  and  not  to  the  amount  as  contained  in  the  l)ill  of 
lading. "-' 

^171.  "Depot." — The  word  "  tlepot  ""  in  a  clause  ex- 
empting the  cari'ier  from  "  unavoidal)le  accidents  of  the 
raili'oad  and  of  lir(>  in  the  i/epot,"'  is  a  broad  one,  and  in- 
cludes (>very  place  where  the  carrier  is  accustomed  to  re- 
ceive, deposit  and  keep  ready  for  transportation  or  delivery, 
goods  and  merchandise."' 

§  172.  "ICn'ors." — In  'Saiiford  v.  llouxafonic  liailwaij 
Coi/i/xni;/,^^*  a  receipt  given  by  the  consignees  of  goods  to 
the  carrier,  acknowledging  their  reci  ipt  in  good  order,  and  In 
wliich  the  I'onsignecN  were  re(|uested  to  notice  any  "errors" 
therein  in  twenty-four  hours,  or  the  carrier  would  consider 
himself  dischargeii,  was  held  not  to  estop  the  consignor 
from  sumg  the  carrier  for  damages  caused  by  negligence  in 
transporting  the  goods,  although  no  notice  was  given  thereof 
to  the  carrier.  The  word  "errors"  in  this  connection 
moans  mistakes,  and  not  waste  or  negligence. 

§  178.  ^'•Eticapeii." — "Notwithstanding  the  stipulation 
in  the  contract  that  defendant  should  not  be  responsible  for 
damages  occasioned  by  '  escapes  from  any  cause  whatever,' 
the  defendant  would  still  be  liable  for  an  "  escape  '  occas- 
ioned by  its  n(^gligonee,  ov  where  sucli  negligence  was  an 
active  and  eo-operating  cause  in  producing  it.  How  far  the 
failure  of    defendant  to  seal  the  car   when   requested  by 


"■^  Meyer  v.  I'eok,  28  X.  Y.  590  (18G4). 

"•^  MiiRhee  v.  Cumueu  &c.  R.  Co.,  4.')  X.  Y.  514  (1871). 

"Ml  Cnsh.  155  (1853), 


:-  %»;tt.Miwl^i^i^W^ '-' 


244 


TIIK  fONTHACrS  OV  CAliUlKKS. 


[CH. 


\  III, 


Hi 


plaintiff  to  do  so,  iiijiy  liuvo  coiitrihutod  to  tlic  oscapc  of 
the  aiiinial,  was  a  (HU'.xtioii  for  tlic  jury,"  "'' 

^  174.  >■'  E.i'fnKifi/hifiri/  Mdrhic  A'/sV.'.'"  —  In  a  diarltM- 
nartv  i)V  wliidi  a  vessel  was  liii't'il  hv  tlu'  irovci'iinient  for 
the  piii'posi' of  plyinii-  in  tlie  liafi)oi'  of  Port  Ivoyal,  S.  ('., 
or  for  such  other  services  as  the  iioverninenl  iniiiht  desiji- 
nale,  it  was  stipulated  thai  in  case  the  vessel,  while  e\e- 
eutii^ir  the  orders  of  the  ji'overninent,  should  be  destro\rd 
or  damaged,  or  hy  heiiiu'  coni[)elIed  by  the  uovernmeiit  lo 
run  any  ••  exti'aordinary  marine  risk,"  tlu^  owner  should  be 
indenmilied.  In  coniplyiiiii'  with  the  orders  of  tiie  Itarbor 
inastei'  at  Port  Royal,  tlie  vessel  struck  upon  the  Huke  of  a 
sunken  anchor  in  the  harb(»r,  and  was  sinik.  It  was  held 
that  the  risk  wliich  the  vessel  thus  incui'red  was  not  an 
"extraordinary  niai'ine  risk"'  within  the  ineaninir  of  the 
charter-party.  It  was  an  ordinary  risk,  which  every  vessel 
that  enters  a  harbor  runs,  and  which  every  marine  policy 
covers."" 

§  Hi).  ''J'Wi/,  Water  anil  Take  Proper  Care  of." — The 
carrier  of  stock  takes  upon  himself  the  duty  of  waterinu-, 
feedinjr  !»ud  bestowinj>'  such  care  upon  them  as  they  may  I'c- 
quire.  IJut  by  special  contract  and  in  eoiisideralion  of  re- 
duced fare  or  other  benctits  this  duty  may  be  assumed  by 
the  shipper.  In  such  case,  for  a  loss  happeninjr  from  a 
want  of  attention  in  this  res[)eet,  the  carrier  is  not  resi)on- 
siblc.lf  he  has  been  uuilty  of  no  negliirence  —  *'  if  he  fur- 
nished adequate  carriage,  afforded  reasonable  oj)|)ort unities 
to  the  owner  or  his  agent  to  eare  for  the  stock,  and  sul)- 
jeeted  them  to  no  unnecessary  delay  in  transportation."  "' 

§  17(3.  "  /*V;r." — As  avc  have  seen,  an  accidental  tire, 
unless  caused  by  lightning,  is  not  the  "act  of  (iod."  ""' 
To  protect  himself  from  an  accidental  loss  of  this  charac- 


'"  Norton,  J.,  in  Oxlcy  v.  St.  Louis  itc.  K.  Co..«.")  Mo.  C.-JO  (1S77). 

"«  Leary  v.  United  States,  14  Wall.  ti07  (1871). 

I'"  Soutii  &c.  Ala))aniaK.  Co.  v.  Ilenlein,  :y2  Ala.  (iOli  (lS7r)). 

"s.lHt*;,  Cap   I,  §  (i;  MoArthiir  v.  Sears,  21  Wend.  100  (lS:J!t) ;  Hale 

v.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co..  15  Conn.  5:{9  (184^). 


CH.  VIII.]  CON'STKLCTION  OF  CONTRACTS. 


24r) 


tor  the  ciirri'.'r  must  ('xi)i'ossly  contnu't  for  tlio  exemption, 
for  it  is  not  includod  in  tlio  cxccplioiis  of  "  uniivoida))!*' 
(Ill Hirers,'"  "'  "  cl:inir<'rs  of  the  river,"  '■"  "  perils  of  the 
seii," '-'  "  i)erils  of  the  river""-  or  the  like.  Bui  even 
where  expressly  excepted,  it  will  not  protect  nirainst  a  de- 
struction of  this  eliiiracter  ori<>inatini>'  in  the  ne;j:li_<rence  or 
want  of  earo  in  the  carrier  or  his  servants  ; '-'  and  this  is  so 
even  where  a  carriei'*s  contract  niiiv  include  his  negligence, 
as  in  New  VorU.'-'  If  jjhicing  goods  in  an  open  car  is  neg- 
ligence, notice  *"  the  owner  at  the  time  of  the  shipment 
that  thev  would  l)e  i)laced  in  such  a  car  will  not  relieve  the 
carrier  froui  lial)ility  for  the  loss.'-''  "Where  a  steamer 
engaged  in  transporting  goods  takes  tire  in  cons(H|uenee  of  a 
collision  caused  by  the  n(>gligence  of  those  having  her  in 
charge,  and  tlu'  cargo  is  thereby  lost,  the  owners  of  the 
cargo  may  recover  against  the  steanun-,  even  though  the 
l)ills  of  lading  expressly  except  the  vessel  and  her  owners 
from  liability  for  loss  in  case  of  tire.  The  tire  in  such  a 
case  is  a  mere  incident  of  the  collision. '-'''  The  failure  of  a 
steamboat  carrying  passengers  and  freight  on  an  inland 
river  to  have  the  cotton  on  its  decks  "  protected  by  a  com- 
plete and  suital)le  covering  of  canvass  or  other  suitable  ma- 
terial to  prevent  ignition  from  sparks,"  as  re(|uired  under  a 


,    i! 


"'■'  I'liion  Miitiiiil  Ins.  Co.  v.  IiidiiiiiapolU  iS:c.  U.  Co..   1    Disney.  4S() 
(lS.-,7). 
'■^"Cox  V.  I't'tcrson.  :i()  Alii.(;08(IS.-i7) 
•a'  Mcnill  v.  Are\ .  :5  Ware.  -Jl.")  (l.S.W). 
i-"^  Gilniore  v.  Ciiiniiin.  1  S.  cV:  ^\.  Wi  (\^V,\) ;  Garrison  v.  Moinpliis  Ins. 

Co..  1!)  How.  :ni>  (is.-)(;). 

'i'  New  Orleans  Miit.  Ens.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans  itc.  J{.  Co..  20  r^a.  Ann. 
'M)i  (IS(iS) :  Levy  v.  t'onteliartrain  U.  Co..  'i!?  La.  Ann.  477  (1871) ;  York 
Co.  V.  Central  Kailread.  ;nVall.  107  (18(i,")) ;  Michigan  .ic.  1{.  Co.  v.  Uea- 
ton.  :$7  Iiid.  W^  (1S71);  (Jrey  v.  M.ibile  Trade  Co.,  Tw  Ala.  3S7  (lS7(i): 
Rank  of  Kentucky  v.  Adams  Kx.  Co..  !):}  I'.  S.  174.4  Cent.  L.  J.  li.". 
(lS7tl):   Erie   It.  Co.  v.  Loekwood.  2S  Ohio  St.  ;{."»,S  (187(i). 

'"  Condiet  v.  (irand  Trunk  II.  Co..  .•)4  N.  Y.  'M  (187;{) ;  Lamb  v.  Cam- 
den &v.  ^{.  Co..  •>  Daly.  451  (18G!)) ;  LamU  v.  Camden  e<:c.  R.  Co..  40  N. 
Y.  -271  (1872) ;  Ste<lnian  v.  U'estern  Trans.  Co.  48  Barb.  !t7 

'S'"'  Montjxnmery  ]{.  Co.  v.  Edmonds,  41  Ala.  (JU7  (18G8). 

'-■o  The  I'ity  of  Xorwieh.  :?  IJen.  .•)7.")  (18(30). 


ill 


24(; 


THE  C'ONTKACTS  OF  CAIMMKIJS.  [ciI.   Mil 


IM: 


pciiMltv  l)v  statute,''''  rciulcrs  tlic  carrier  liahlc  for  u  loss  In- 
Hre,  although  the  hill  of  ladinu'  cxoiiipts  "  danuci's  of  llu' 
river  and  tire."  '-'^ 

Tn  a  bill  of  lading'  <>f  a  steaiul»oat  the  word  '•  tire  "  means 
any  lire  and  is  not  restricted  to  lire  or.<jrinalinu"  from  the 
boat's  furnace.'-"'  Nor  is  it  (jualilied  by  "  unavoidable"  in 
the  clause  »*  Hre  and  all  other  unavoidable  accidi'iits,"  and 
therefore  such  an  excoi)tion  will  cover  a  loss  by  fire  whether 
unavoidable  or  not,  if  not  neuliijenl .'"'  Where  uoods  were 
sent  by  carriers  by  water  over  a  line  which  included  railwav 
carriaire  also,  the  bill  of  ladinj;  iriven  by  the  ci-rrier  bv 
watei"  except inj:' "  dani^ers  of  naviu'atioii,  lii'c  and  coliisions 
on  the  lakes  ami  rivers  and  on  the  \\'elland  canal,"'  i(  was 
held  that  this  liiiitation  did  not  extend  to  a  loss  by  lire  on  a 
railroad.''" 

vj  177.  *'7'o/'//v//v/."' — To  "  forwartl  "  means  to  "send 
and  not  to  carry.  Thcrefcfre  when  an  express  coinpanx 
agrees  to  "forward  "  a  package  to  a  ])<)int  I)eyond  the  ter- 
minus of  its  route,  the  contract  expressly  limitinir  its  lia- 
bility to  that  of  forwarders,  and  throuirh  cliarires  not  be- 
ing paid,  the  lialiility  of  the  company  as  a  common  carrier 
eeas(!s  at  the  end  of  its  I'oule,  when  the  package  arrives 
there  in  safety  and  is  deliv(>red  with  proper  insti-nctions  to 
another  rcsjjonsible  carrier  upon  the  line  to  I  he  point  of 
destination.'''-'  In  a  Kansas  case,'''''  the  S; .  Louis,  Kan.-as 
City  i!C  Northern  K'ailway  Company,  owning  and  operating 
a  line  of  railroad  from  Kansas  City  to  Mexico  and  there 
connecting  with  another  road   runninu;-  toChicairo,  made  a 


'•-'^  M  v.  S.  Stui.  :il  l.iirs'c. -i^r. 

'-"*  (Jrcy  V.  Mobile  'I'nidc  ("n..  T).")  Al:i.  :iS7  (I87(J). 

'i«'  Swindler  v.  llillianl.  2  Kieli.  (S.  C.)  21(1  (ISItl). 

'■■"('oltoii  V.  Cleveliiiid  Ac  1{.  Co..  i)7  I'a.  St.  211  (1S70). 

'■"  I$iirler  v.  WlieeliM-,  (!)  X.  11.  !)  (]S(;:)). 

'■'■'-' Keed  V.  I'liited  States  Express  Co.,  (S  \.  V.  1(12  (ls72).  (omiiare 
Illinois  Ceiil.  II.  Co.  v.  Frankenhuf<r.  ."I  111.  ss  (ls70);  Wal.I  v.  Moll,  2(; 
Wis.  70;{  ns70). 

"•'St.  Louis  i^e.  U.  Co.  v.  Piper.  i:{  Kas.  ,->().•>  (1S71;.  and  >e.>  fmllier 
pott,  Cap.  X. 


\ 


ni.   \  III.]  fONSTIUJCTIOX  (»I-  CONI'lIArTS. 


247 


coiilriict  (()  "  foi'uai'd  ""  ccrtMin  calllc  frdiii  K!ui>:is  City  to 
Cliiciiiro,  stipuliitiiijj:  tlicrcin  that  tlir  shipper  slioiild  "  tako 
(•arc  <»f  1h(!  catth-  whih-  on  the  trip,"  and  that  **  it  and  <'on- 
n(M'tini:'  lines  over  whieli  sneh  fi'eijflit  niiirlit  pass  shoidd  not 
he  liahh'  I'oi'  any  h)ss,  daniaLre  or  injury  which  niiuht  ha])- 
pen  in  h)adin,i:',  forwardinir  or  nnloathnir,  \)y  suft'ocalion  * 
*  *  or  by  any  other  eaii>e  except  i^ross  neii'lipMice,"'  and 
that  "  it  and  conneetini:' lines  shouhl  I)e  deemed  merely  for- 
warders, and  not  eonnnon  carriers,  and  only  lial)le  for  such 
loss  *  *  *  .(s  miirht  he  uross  nejriiucnce  only,  i  nd  not 
othei'wise.""  It  was  held  that  the  St.  Louis,  Kansas  City  A 
Xorthern  IJailway  Company  was  liable  as  a  carrier  for  the 
transportation  the  entire  distance,  and  was  responsible  for 
any  loss  or  injury  occni'rinu'  from  ordinaiy  neirliu'cnce, 
whether  such  iieiiTiuence  was  on  its  own  or  a  connecting' 
line. 

§  17S.  '*  FrrcrjiiKj." — Not  witlistandintr  this  excc[)tion  a 
carrier  is  still  liable  foi'  a  loss  from  this  cause  arisinir  from 
a  failm-e  to  forwai'd  ihe  iroods  with  reasonable  dispatch.  A 
bill  r>f  ladinii'  foi"  a  cai-load  of  potatoes  ha<l  written  upon  its 
face  the  words  '>  owners"  risk  freezin;:'."  Durinu'  a  delay  of 
ten  days  on  the  road  the  potatoes  were  injured  by  frost. 
'IMie  delay  was  caused  by  a  strike  amonu'  the  defendants' 
engineers,  which  oriuinalcd  in  conse<|uence  of  the  t-niploy- 
ment  of  an  cn;:iiiee:'  not  of  the  l)i'othcrhood.  their  i)Iac(>s 
Ix'inu'  lillc(l  a-  rapidly  as  other  engineers  could  be  found  to 
lake  liiem.     The  company  was  held  liable  foi' the  damau'e.'"' 

§  ITIt.  -'  From  Wlndi'vci'  ('nitsc.''  —  An  au'rcement  lo 
take  the  risk  of  injury  arisini;'  "  from  whatever  cause""  will 
not  include  an  injury  caused  l>y  neiiliii'enee.  In  >Sinilli  r. 
Xrir  York  ('(III ml  liiulnntd  ('(iiiijxnii/,'^"'''  the  plaintiff  who 
was  in  charu'e  of  a  quantity  of  live  stock  which  the  d(>fend- 
ants  were  transporting:"  on  their  I'oad,  had  accepted  a  stock 
pass  which  contained  a  condition  that   the  '•  persons  ridinii' 

'•'^  Rciul  V.  Si.  I.iuiis  i»ci-.  I!.  ('(•..  (id  Mo.  I'.Ki  ils7.-.) :   Wull'  v.  Ainorican 
Kxitivss  (■(...  1:5  .Mo.  121  (ISC)!!). 
'■<•■■  ->!i  B;irl).  WVi  (ls,-,!ii:  alliiiiicMl  -J  I  N.  Y.  •Itl.  ilSC-J-). 


%■ 


■'l! 


^■a^raaawwsv 


II 


24H 


TI!K  ('<)NTI!.\(  TS  OK  CAIMMKKS. 


[CIl.   Mil. 


free  to  lake  cliiirjic  of  the  slocU  (li>  so  nl  tln'if  own  I'isk 
of  personal  injiirv  from  wlialcvci"  cause."  "  Tlicrc  arc 
risks  incidcnl  to  the  transaction,"  said  IIociKiiooM.  .1.,  "  to 
wliicli  this  chiuse  niiirlit  naturally  and  properly  apply  ;  risks 
from  the  stock  themselves  ;  risks  from  detentions  ahmi:'  ihc 
nay:  risks  fiom  the  ncci'ssity  of  inovini:  about  the  t-ars  for 
the  purpose  of  fcedini''  and  l.'ikini:'  <"ir<'  of  the  stock  ;  risks 
from  the  increased  ditliculties  and  perils  of  opcratini;"  a 
train  of  cars  heavily  incumhered  with  live  stock  :  I'isks  inci- 
dent to  the  manairement  of  every  railroad  tr.'iin,  iind  inhe- 
rent in  the  vei'v  nature  of  the  husiness,  ,'ind  not  always  pos- 
sible to  l)e  avoided  even  hy  the  exercise  of  the  utmost 
])ri'cauti()n.  Aji'ainst  such  risks  we  may  well  conclude  the 
parties  intendetl  to  contract  ;  h.it  to  assume  that  the  pjissen- 
iror  ii\tended  to  issue  a  license  foi-  misconduct  or  pay  a  pre- 
mium for  n(\ij:li^cnce  is  more  than  I  am  willinu"  to  believe." 
vj  ISO.  ^^(t(i()i/  Order  (iiii/  ('o)uli'fioii." — 'I'lie  admission 
In  a  bill  of  hidiiiir  that  the  <;oods  were  i'ec(>ived  in  "  ;rood 
order  and  condition,"  refers  only  to  tiieir  external  appear- 
ance :  the  carrier  is  not  concluded  by  this  statement,  but 
may  explain  or  <'ontradict  it  by  parol  evidence.  "The  adoj)- 
tion  of  the  principle  that  the  bill  of  ladinji'  is  conclusive  on 
the  carrier  not  oidy  as  to  the  apparent  but  also  as  to  the  ac- 
tual condition  of  the  yoods  would  impose  on  him  the 
necessity,  for  self-protection,  of  openiiiii  every  box  of  uk  r- 
chandise  to  examine  and  ascertain  the  condition  of  its  con- 
tents before  he  receives  it.  'i'his  would  not  only  be 
inconvenient  but  impracticable  on  the  p.-irt  of  steaml)oat 
owncr.s,  on  account  of  the  vast  carrvinii'  business  on  the 
rivers.  The  injury  that  would  be  inflicted  on  the  owners  of 
freijjfht  by  the  process  that  it  would  be  subjected  to  in  con- 
seipience  of  such  a  requisitif)!!  is  also  a  cojicnt  arirument 
against  it.  The  bulk  of  every  j)ackaj:e  would  have  to  be 
broken  up  and  examined,  and  the  contents  of  every  box  if 
merehandise  of  the  most  delicate  t(>xture  oi)ened  aixl 
handled  before  a  bill  of  lading  could  be  safely  signed. 
Public  jjolicy,  therefore,  prohibits  a    rule    which   would  be 


•^mmk. 


CM.  VIII.J 


(ON'STifrcrrox  ok  coNTKArrs. 


24!) 


j)r()clii('tiv('  (if  such  results,  iiixl  wliicli,  iiislcad  of  hcuotil- 
tiiii:',  would  iiillict  mm  iiijiii-y  upon  t'lc  (•oiniuniiity."''"  'I'liiis 
llic  rcccipl  for  h.'ilcs  of  coltc  :.  "  in  nood  order  iiiid  well 
eoiidilioiit'd,'"  docs  iioi  warraiil  the  iiilcriiMl  (jUidity  or  con- 
dition of  llic  cotton  in  llic  hides.'"  And  the  cliiusc  '•  ship- 
ped in  jippiirent  j^'ood  order  .'ind  condition,  live  cases  of 
incr<handise,"  was  held  an  admission  only  that  the  cases 
contained  merchandise,  and  were  outwardly  sound.'"*  Hut 
where  a  hill  of  lading'  was  jifivcn  for  a  hox  of  marhle  tops, 
<'  in  fjjood  order  and  well  contlitioucd,"  it  was  held  that  tho 
)»ur<len  of  proof  was  upon  the  carrier  to  show  that  the  mar- 
l)]e  was  hroken  when  it  came  into  his  hands;  for  here  thoro 
was  the  carrier's  adnnssion  that  the  speciHed  articles  wen; 
in  the  l)o.\  and  in  _<rood  order.'"'  The  word  "  apparent  "  in- 
serted hefore  the  word  "jjfood,""  does  not  chaniic  its  le<ral 
effect.'^" 

^^  IHl.   "//w/,   .Siiforafioii  and  llw  Oiher   HI  Ejfccts  of 
lidtKi  Criiiriicd." —  In  a  contract  for  the  transjiortation  of 

'"  Bicck.  .1..  ill  (Jowdy  V.  I.yon.  !l  M.  Moii.  ll-J  (ISIS);  Kfitli  v. 
Aiin'iulc.  1  Hiisli.  455  (I.S(i());  WnvvvU  v.  Holers.  7  Mass.  207  (1811);  Tlio 
MUsoiiri  V.  Weill).  0  Mo.  lint  (1S.|5) ;  Ticincy  v.  \<'W  York  Cent.  U.  Co., 
1(1  lliiii.  5(;!i  (1S77).  "'riie  receipt  of  tlie  liijl  of  liuliii<!;  is  an  admission 
that  tlie  ;jo()(ls  were  win  n  received  in  apjiarent  good  order,  lint  it  is  not 
•  eonelnsive  as  to  tlieii'  actual  condition.  It  makes  a  prima  fack  case 
ajiainst  lln^  sliip.  and  ;iives  the  liliellants  a  rij^ht  to  recover  unless  this 
■  ease  is  <ivei(ome  hy  the  evidence.  The  hiirden  of  admission  rests  upon 
the  sliip  until  it  is  shown  that  the  appearance  and  condition  of  the  goods 
at  the  time  of  their  discharji^e  are  consistent  with  the  actual  existence  in 
llie  packajjes  of  the  cause  of  tlie  diimafte  when  the  sliipnient  was  made, 
uithout  discovery  liy  the  sliip's  a^«Mits,  actiiif;  in  ji;ood  faith  and  with  or- 
dinary care,  while  takinjj  the  caijjo  on  hoard."  Waite.  C.  J.,  in  Archer 
V.  The  Adriatic.  IM'i'iit.  I...).  201  (lS7!t) ;  Carson  v.  Harris.  4  (J.  Greene. 
51(i  (IS.'il) :  Mitclicll  V.  United  States  Kxpress  Co..  4()  Iowa.  214  (1877) : 
West  v.  Tlie  JJerlin.  :{  Iowa,  5:52  (I85(i) :  The  Freedom.  L.  K.  W  V.  C.  5!)4 
(1871):  Tlic  Olheis.  :$  Ben.  148  (18(J!l):  Vaiighan  v.  Six  Hundred  and 
Thirty  Casks,  7  Hen.  5()(;  (1874).  A  wagoner's  receii)t  for  goods  in  good 
order  is  priniu  fiicic  evidence  that  they  were  so  when  received.  Austin  v. 
Talk.  2(»  Texas.  104  (18.57). 

I'''  Hradstreet  v.  Ileran,  2  lilatchf.  llC.  (1S4!»). 

'■■^^  Ahliott  on  Siiipiiing.  :{:i!l:  Tlie  California,  2  Sawy.  12  (1871). 

'■■■■'  I'rice  v.  I'owcll.  :i  X.  Y.  ;522  (18.5(»). 

'*''.riie  Oritlamme.  1  Sawy.  17<J  (1870). 


9 


f-S 


•I 


m 


:^i 


2r)() 


TIIK  CONTKACTM  Ol'  CAIJIMKHM. 


[ 


('II.   VIII, 


cuttlf,  on  account  of  I  he  |)('culiiii*  natuiT  of  the  carriii;,!'  of 


lis,  Ih 


rds  hiivc  l)ct'n  held  in    N<'\\  "^'ork  t( 


J  ■), 


live  animals,  iiicsc  words  iiiivc  nct'ii  iicui  in  .x-w  i  oni  U) 
I'xcnii)!  the  carrier  from  lial>ilily  for  injuries  l>v  heal ,  etc., 
tlu'   result    of  his  own  ne;_'^iij:-ence."' 

§  1H2.  "  Iiicrifah/r  Aci  ithiifx." — See  "  hanirersof  Nav- 
ijration,"  "  riiavoithilde  AccicU-nts.'" 

§  1)^.').  "■ /ii/if'iTiif  Dctcviorafinti." — 'I'his  plirase  in  a  hill 
of  huliiiu-  will  not  excu-c  the  cleliverv  of  fruit  in  a  decayed 
condition,  which  it  is  shown  was  so  slowed  In  the  carrier 
as  not  to  permit  proper  veiililatioii,  and  therefore   roU(-d."- 

§  1-Sl.  "- L<'(iko(i>'  and  lircalciKic." — The  condition  "  not 
to  he  aceountaltle  for  leakage  or  hreakap' "  i>  inserted  l»y 
the  carrier  to  [U'otect  himself  from  uiiavoidalile  losses  of 
this  kind,  leavinu- him  still  responsihle  for  want  of  >kill  or 
care  in  the  handliii":,  .stowa<ic  or  deliver\  of  the  lioods  in- 
li'usted  to  him.  "'Ordinarily,"  says  ( 'im'.sswkli,,  ,!.,  in  apt 
lunufuaire,  "  the  master  undertakes  to  take  due  and  proper 
care  of  ^oods  intrusted  to  him  for  conveyance,  and  to  stow 
them  properly ;  and  he  is  responsihh"  for  •  leakaj:'e  and 
l)reaka<;e.'  Ileri'  he  expressly  stipulates  not  to  he  account- 
able for  '  leakage  or  hreakaiic'  leavinj:'  the  rest  as  before. 
That  is  the  whole  case."  "'  Kxani[)Ies  of  this  docti'iiie  are 
j^iven  below.'"     'I'he  word  "  Icakaiz'c  "  beini:'  iiileii<lcd   only 

'<!  Cra^nn  v.  New  York  Cent.  1{.  Cn..  .M  N.  V.  CI  i\s--l).  nml  >.■(•  «(„,'-■. 
<'ap.  VI.  !;  i:i.".-i;is.  and  sec  poM.  i  -HVl. 

"-"I'lit'  AiiiiTica.  s  Urn.  I'.U    (JsTC). 

n'l  Pliili])- V.  Claik.^  ('.  |{.  (\.  S.)  I.".r,.  :{  .lni-.  ( N.  S.)  KIT. -iii  !,.  .1.  ('. 
I'.  lOS  (ls.-)7):  and  sec  Stcidi-  v.  'I'crwn-ciid.  :{7  Ala.  217  (Isiil);  The 
I't-rcirc.  S  IJi'ii.  :}()1  (ls7:)):  Six  lliindrrd  and  Tliirty  ("asks.  It  Hlaldif. 
.■)17  (IJ<7S);  'I'he  David  and  Caroline.  .'>  Blatehf.  liUl!  (IS(!:>) :  Tiie  K.'ilii.  I 
IJon.  :U.')  (1X711):  Hono  v.  llot-im.  12  H.  Mmi.  (Sli  (ls,-,|):  'i'i„.  Invineil.ie. 
1  Lnw.  25.")  (isc.s) :  Dedi  kam  v.  Vdsc. ;{  lUalrlif.  II  (ls,-):i):  H'uiinewell 
V.  Taljcr.  2  Si»ragne.  1  (1S.')I);  Tin-  Orillainnie.  1  Sawy.  17(!  (lS7(t):  'i'iie 
Olhers.  ;{  Ben.  IIS  (lS(i',t);  Vaiifxliai)  v.  Six  Hundred  and  'i'liirty  Casks. 
7  He;i.  .->()i;  (1X71;. 

'^'  I'ndera  hill  of  ladini;  eontainin.n'  a  slipuhilioii  that  oil.  uiiieh  i<  a 
part  of  the  carjfo.  shall  he  wet  twice  a  week,  and  also  the  clause  "not 
accountahle  for  loakaire  oi'  stow.ajfe."  the  carrier  is  liahle  for  loss  of  oil 
hy  leakage,  caused  hy  the  casks  not  boini;  iiroperly  wet.  Iliinnewcll  v. 
'I'aber,  2  Sprajrue.  I  (is,")!).  Where  an  action  was  ln'oui-iit  under  a 
clause  in  a  hill  of  ladini;;  •■  not  acc(juntahle  for  lireaknije."  to  recover  foi 


(II,    VIII.']  CONSTIMCTION  f.l'  (((NTItAC TS. 


afil 


t(»  protect  (lie  caiTicr  from  liahilit  v  t(»  coiupciisntc  llif  owiUT 
of  tlio    ijoods    for   the    \vii^(c    ort'MsioiictI    l»\     lr;iUiii!»'.    does 


four  iiiillslmics  liioki'ii  mi  tin'  vo\ii;j('.  imd  two  (illifis  tliiit  never  ciiiiu'  ti> 

tllC  |Pl>SSC>^i<)ll  of  IllC  Cillisli;-)!!.!-..  it  Uil>  lu'lll  IIkU  it  \MI-  illl'imilu'lll  Oil 
llic  iiw  IH'IN  uf    lilt'  slli|i    Ml    lc;l-l   tu  .-llOW  lllll   llli'  IWil  IIiIs.hIiijX  ftttlU'f*  WOI't! 

ili«i'li;irj;i''l  >i|i"ii  lln' w  li;ii  f  iiml  plMccd  willi  lli"  nllicrs  nii  tliut  [mrl  of  it 
uhic'li  huil  Imiii  Mifclcil  lor  llic  lilii'll;iiil"s  ;;()ii(ls.  siiid  lliiil  siicli  Jinidf 
lii'iii;;-  waiilliijj:  tlif  stiip  wttiild  lie  lial)l<';  while  ii>  lo  tlie  I'oiir  l)iol;eii 
vtdiies.  Ilie  -l(i«  i  i^e  lieiii;;  pi'Dved  to  liiive  tieeii  "^ond  and  no  e\  ideiiee  of 
iiej;lij;eiiee  lieinj;  sliown  liie  eaifjer  \\:i>  not  lialile.  ('aicy  v.  Atlun-.  <> 
Hen.  ."i(i2  (ix'li).  Stonewan'  jiipes  wei-e  sliipiied  on  a  vessel  luider  a  Itill 
of  ladin;;  I'xeeptin;,^  ••  danpM's  of  the  sea  and  navlf^allon."  Imt  eonlain- 
iii;^  no  exception  of  los^  liy  lireal;a;re.  'I'liey  \vi  re  in  {^ood  oidcf  wlien 
reeeived,  weie  stowed  pfoperly  and  wcfe  liaiidled  eareliilly  in  loadini; 
and  dis('liai';;in;^.  Imt  some  of  tliein  eanie  to  i)ie(e-  wlicn  lpein;j;  ilis- 
eliar^ed.  frointiie  development  of  ei'aejts  existinj;-  when  the  pipi's  wcfe 
|iut  on  hoard  or  caused  while  on  hoard  Ity  liie  ••  jieiils  of  tlii'  sea." 
the  ship  haviiijr  m;M  with  had  wcatliei'.  The  consii,niee  tendered  the 
fiviujlit  on  tlie  sound  pipes  delivered,  whidi  was  refused.  aiM  tici;j:lil 
was  demanded  on  the  wiiole.  at  the  rate  per  Ion  sjiecilied  in  the  Idll  of 
ladinir.  and  a  lil>el  was  tiled  ajjain-t   the  lidods  to   reco\<''  the   fii-i.^lit. 

//'/(/.    that   as  tlie  }i Is  were  properly  >towed  w  itli  reiermce   to  llieif 

character  and  their  apparent  condition,  the  \c>sel  was  not  liahlc  fortlieir 
hreaka^e.  and  was  entitled  to  III  Id  all  the  ;,'<)ods  till  the  full  frei^lil  was 
paid.  Vilritied  i^c,  St'wcr  I'ipcs.  .->  IJoi.  I(»2  (Is"!).  Casks  of  plmnliaj^o 
were  liroii;ilit  in  ilift'crciit  sliips  of  a  line  under  Iiills  of  ladin;;'  which  ex- 
empted llic  ship  from  daniaL!;e>  rcsnllinit  ••  from  I  'aka^Jte  oi'  hical.auc.  or 
from  slowauc.  liowe\('r  siicli  damiii^'cs  minht  he  i'air-.cd."  On  sonic  of  tlie 
hills  of  ladinic  were  niemoi'aiida  that  the  casks  were  loose  when  shipiied. 
'I'he  eoiHiijiicc-.  hioux'hl  -nit  a:;;!!!!-!  Ihe  owner  of  the  vessel  to  rei'over 
for  phiniliap)  lost  out  of  the  ca-ks.  as  tlicy  claime>l  t>y  rea>on  <if  in;nry 
to  ihe  i'ask>  from  careless  handlimj;.  ll<ltl.  liiat  the  excmiilion  in  the  l>ill 
of  lading-  was  not  siillicieiit  to  exempt  the  owner  from  loss  arising  from 
his  nciiligence:  tiial  ii.  ca-cs  where  the  memoranda  that  the  ca-ks 
wi're  loose  were  on  the  liill  of  lading,  the  prcsmnptioii  would  he  that  any 
loss  which  occurred  arose  from  such  loose  condition  of  the  ca-ks.  \e!- 
son  v.  \al.  Steamship  Co..  7  I5eii.  IMO  (isri).  A  railroad  comiiany 
transporting  a  mirror  over  its  road  at  the  •■owner's  risk  as  i-egards 
hreakage."  jilaccd  it  along  with  agricnltnral  implements  and  other 
heavy  frcigiit  in  a  narrow  passage  way.  throngli  which  drays  and  other 
vehie!<'s  were  constantly  pa-sing.  It  was  there  struck  hv  a  passing  dray 
and  hroken.  'I'he  company  was  held  liable  foi-  Ihe  loss.  .Missouri  iSiv. 
\l.  Co.  V.  Caldwell.  S  Kas.  211  (1S71).  Where  a  hill  of  lading  con- 
tained the  clause  ••  not  accountahlo  for  breakage.""  and  it  iipiieared  that 
certain  cases  muler  the  liill  had  been  placed  llatwise  and  endwise,  and 
that  the  contents  of  some  had  broken:  though   all   were  receii)ted  for 


..!!>;;!; 


'  5 


]-A 


2rrJ 


TIIK  CONTItAfTS  or  fAKinKlls. 


[cil.    VIII. 


not  cxlriid  to  «lamMiii'  cMii^cd  l»v  (lie  liiiuid  to  oilier  irood-.. 
So  "  Id'cakii;;!' "  will  not  cover  (lamiiue  »loin'  l>v  tiir  broken 
•roods  (o  other  ^oods."'  It  is  held  in  I'JiLrliiiid  thiit,  iie^rli- 
Jjeiice  JK'iii;:'  nhseill,  tile  e(»iiditioil  lis  to  leidxilir*'  extends  In 
Jill  le:il<iiire.  whet  her  ordinary  or  exlraordin.iry.  In  Ohrlnlf 
r.  /in'scd//,^^'-  TriiM;!;,  L.  ,1.,  said:  '*  On  tiie  ;irn;iini('iil  dif- 
ferent viev.s  were  siijriresleij  hy  eoiins(>|  as  lo  the  nieaninii' (d' 
(lie  word  '  leakaui'e."  I''or  the  res|miideiils  it  was  eonteiided 
that  the  Word  means  only  ordinary  leakajje  (which  accord- 
iii<;  to  the  evidence  ainoiints  to  olie  pel-  cent . ).  and  does  not 
oxieiid  lo  exlraordiniiry  leakai^e,  such  as  that  in  (|nestioii, 
ainoiintiii;:' to  an  alle<:'ed  delicieiK'V  of  J, (MM)  tralloiis.  *  * 
*  *  'I'lie  learned  jiid;:<'  of  the  admiralty  court  appears  to 
have  adopted  the  conslruetion  (d'  the  word  '  leakaji'e'  e(»ii- 
IcMided  for  liy  the  respomh'iits.  *  •  •  |^„j  \y,,  ,|,,  |,,,| 
think  such  a  const  met  ion  allowahle.  'i'lie  condition  that 
the  shipowners  are  not  (o  he  accoiintahle  for  leakajfe  does 
not,  in  its  ordinary  and  <rraininatical  sense,  put  any  limit  to 
the  (juaiitity  of  leaka^^e  ;  and  on  principle,  theiud'ore,  \ve  do 
not  think  it  would  he  justitialile  to  add  any  such  limit  to  its 
terms.  Nor  are  we  aware  of  any  authority  for  doiii<r  so." 
IJiit  in  this  country  sueli  a  condition  does  not  allow  the  car- 
rier to  deliver  empty  casks.  The  ordinary  sijrnilication  of 
*' leakaiTi!,"  it  is  very  |)roperly  said,  is  the  loss  of  a  part, 
not  the  whole."' 

§  IH;').  ^'■Lnni/  (I, III  l^iiliKiil." — A  contract  under  which 
a  shipper  of  stock  a^rrees  to  "  load  and  unload  at  lii> 
own    risk,""   places   uj)on    him   the   risk   of    damaire  to    his 


I  ?v. ',.  t. 


l)('f(irt'  Dpi'iiiiinf  as  ill  ijooil  (ndcr.  l)iii  it  iidI  api)<'jiriiijf  tliat  the  hrcaka^jc 
was  ciiuscd  In- tln' fad  that  tiic  cases  liad  lieeii  i)ile(l  Hat  anil  einhvi-e: 
lli'lil.  .hat  the  ('oiisi;:;iiees  1i:ii|  faileij  to  show  that  any  damage  had  lieen 
done  on  the  siiip.    The  Dellii.  I  Hen.  :U.")  (IS7(I). 

""'Thiii'  V.  Yoiile.  L.  l^.  'i  (".  1'.  1).  X.Vl  (IS77). 

'«■'  L.  U.  .  I'.  (".  •J:tl,  12  .liir.  (\.  S.)  07."..  :!.■)  L.  .1.  1*.  ('.  (lit.  IT.  \V.  I{. 
202.  1 1  h.  T.  (X.  S.)  87:$.  4  Moore.  \\  ('.('.  (\.  S.)  70.  .s.  ,\.  s„l,  nom. 
The  llelene.  H.  it  I,.  -12!)  (isdi;). 

"■  IJiaiU'i-  V.  The  Almoner  IS  I,a.  Ann.  2('>(;  (Isoi;);  Thoiims  v.  The 
Morning  Glory,  111  Fiii.  Anii.  2(!l»  (l.s.VS) ;  Arend  v.  Liverpool  &v.  Steani- 
t»hip  Co..  (I  I.;ins.  l.-)!».  s.  r..  (U  Hirh.  lis  (1S72). 


\  III. 


(11,   VII!. 


CONSTItfCriON  Ol"  ((iNTItACTM. 


2r>3 


...Is. 
I<<'ll 
•-li- 
t(* 

■loir 
(I  if- 

,!^'  <  •  r 

Kird 

itnl- 

llul 

inn, 


|ir<>|)crty  or  to  liiiiix'ir  fi'oiii  the  iiianiKr  ut'  luMdinu'  or  iiii- 
loiidiiiLi'.  Tilt'  "■oiidirKtii  dues  ii.ii,  liuwcNcr,  phirc  iiiiv  !•*•- 
>|)(>iisil>ilil  V  upon  liiiii  dmiii'i  ilic  iniDspoi'lulioii,""  nor  cm- 
linict'  loiidini:'  or  indoiidiiiii'  at  intcniicdiiitc  sliiti(tii.-i,"''  nor 
pcrsonjil  injnrifs  wliitli  he  nuiy  Misiain  IVoin  external 
causes,  IIS  w  lici'c  a  shippci-  while  eiiua.i:'''!  in  loadiii;:;'  lii-i  «'ai' 
was  run  into  liy  anollier  tiiiiii.''"'  Where  hy  a  eoiitniet  for 
the  eaiTiai:e  of  live  >loek  t  he  owiiei'  took  tlie  risk  (d'  dani- 
ai:e  "in  loa.liii;^',  unloadin_i>',  eonveyaiiee  and  otherwise, 
whether  arisinj:'  from  neiiiiucnee  or  oliierwise,"  and  liie  l>ol- 
totu  of  the  ear  dropped  out,  it  was  held  that  if  the  <'ar 
was  unlit  the  earrier  was  lialde.'' 

>i  isii.  "Arwx." —  A  delivery  (»f  the  <j;()ods  l»y  tlu'  «'arrier 
to  a  person  not  eiilitled  to  receive  them  is  not  a  *'  loss" 
within  the  meaninj;  of  a  lontraet  lu'tweeii  carrier  and  .shi[)- 
pcr  that  in  tiu!  event  of  the  "loss"  of  the  uood.s  "  th(^ 
value  or  cost  of  Ihc;  same  at  the  point  and  time  of  the 
shifunent  is  to  jiovern."  '■'■  15ut  u  rohhery  is  within 
this  term  —  it  not  heinj^-  e(tntine(l  to  an  accid 'iital  lo.ss.''*' 
When!  an  express  company  ifave  a  recei[)t  containing  a 
«'lause  exemi)tin<^  it  from  "  any  loss  or  damago  wliatever 
unless  claim  should  he  \\\xu\i\  therefor  within  ninety  days 
from  the  delivery  to  it,"  it  was  held  that  this  clause  had  no 
application  to  a  suit  against  the  company  for  the  iion-de- 
liverv  of  the  u'oods  themselves,  that  not  heiuji  ii  ■'^uit  either 
for  loss  or  damage."'' 

§  I.S7.  "  Owner's  Jii's/i."' — The  term  "owner's  risk," 
in  a  contriiet  for  the  transportation  of  goods,  imports  that 
the  owner  assumes  tlu;  risks  arising  from  the  ordinary  dan- 


11 


'*•  Indiiiimpolis  &c.  H.  Co.  v.  Allen,  M  Iiiil.  ;m  (180!)). 

n'-'Unly  lit  llif  termini.  I'eiin  v.  Buffalo  &c'.  it.  Co.,  4'J  N.  Y.  2(lt 
C1S72).   ' 

'■■*'  .Sliiison  V.  New  York  Ci'iit.  K.  Co.  'Al  N.  Y.  'MW  (180.")). 

'■''Hawkins  v.  (ireiit  Wostoni  Jl,  Co.,  17  Midi,  'u  (I8GS);  Sissoii  v. 
Clevi'liiml  »S:e.  Ji.  (.'o.,  11  Midi.  48!)  (ISUd). 

"2  IJalliinore  Ac.  K.  Co.  v.  MoWliimiey,  m  lad.   KIO  (1871). 

'•«  Coviiiytou  V.  VVilhin,  (Jow.  11.")  (ISl'.t). 

'•■'<  Porter  v.  Soatliurii  l':x[)re:is  Co.,  »  S.  C.  1:5")  (1872). 


I 


»^  t  -M 


254 


THK  CONTKACTS  OF  rAUUIKlJS. 


[ni.  VIII. 


i.ilr 


giU's  of  triiiisportiilioii  by  tho  niciins  ein[)I()VO(l,  wliicli  the 
reasontiblo  iiiiJ  ordiiitiry  caro  of  the  comnioii  ciirricr  inii>iii 
be  insuHioiont  to  pivvciit,  ami  the  latter  is  lial)l('  only  foi' 
tlioso  daiigei's  which,  with  ordinary  care  and  prudence, 
might  be  avoiiUnl.'  "  He  will  still  l)e  answeral)le  for  his 
own  negligence  or  misconduct,  or  that  of  his  servants  or 
aaents.''"  A  loss  arisinir  from  embezzlement  of  the  <><)ods 
is  not  within  the  phrase.'"     In  >lh'V(ifl  >•.  London  d*  Xorlh 

•'■■■Freiieh  v.  Hutlilo  I'tc.  U.  Co..  I  Kcyc-.  liis.  i  Al)li.  App.  Dec.  P.ni 
(ISOS). 

'"■^AlexandPi-  v.  (ircoiio.?  Hill.  .">;!;!  (ISll) ;  .Moon- v.  Kviiiis,  II  Harh.  ."rJ! 
(IS.Vi);  V/'olls  V.  SlCiim  X;ivig:itioii  Co..  S  X.  Y.  :i7.")  (1S,'):{) :  Wiilliicc  v. 
Sandorv!,  12  Ga.  -ISO  (1871);  Xiislivillc  &.v.  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  (I  Ilojsk. 
•J71  (1S71):  !)■  \n-  v.  Lniiilon  &.v.  \\.  Co.  I-.  H.  !)  C.  l'.:!2r>  (]S7(.)  Tin' 
plaintiff".*  floods  were  carrii'd  hy  defendant.-;  iindei- a  contract  wiilillie 
•fovcrnnienl  Uy  whicli  the  l)M;c^a;:;e  of  certain,  troop.-;,  ineiniiini;  tlie  plain- 
tiff'fi  ji;oods.  wi'.YO  to  remain  in  eiiai-j^e  of  a  inilitai'v  <;Mard.  ••  the  coniiiany 
aeeeptim:;  no  re-pon.sihility :""  lIiUU  that  tiie  company  were  liable  for  ihe 
lo.-:s  of  the  goods  occasioned  hy  their  own  negli.u'enee.  and  that  the  plain- 
tiff could  sue  for  ihe  iiegliLCence  though  ho  could  no!  have  sued  for  Ov. 
nou-iierformance  of  the  contract.  Marlin  v.  (ireat  Indian  H.  Co..  I..  I?. 
;{  Ex.  !l  (lsii7.)  Where  a  cai'rier  trauspor!s  goods  at  two  rates,  one 
lower  than  ihe  other,  anil  the  reeeipi  for  the  lower  rale  contains  the 
words  •' at  ov,  nei'"s  risk."  whii'h  term  is  explained  therein  as  intended 
to  free  the  carrier  irom  any  liahility  for  loss  except  that  caused  hy  wilful 
misconduct,  it  w Hi  not  he  liable  for  damage  to  goods  so  sent,  occasioned 
by  the  imjuoper  packing  of  the  goods  by  the  servants  of  the  carrier. 
Lewis  V.  (ircat  AVesi<'ru  K.  Co.. -JCi  W.  R.  1 1  (1S77).  "'riie  contention 
|)ut  forward  by  Mr.  Powcdl  is  this:  There  is  evidence  of  something  hav- 
ing been  done  winch  ought  not  to  have  been  done:  that  is  miseontlnct. 
That  niseonduet  was  not  accide'.ilal.  iluM'efore  '•{  \\;is  wilful.  Hut  there 
iu  a  mass  of  authority  on  this  i)oint ;  ano  it  all  goes  to  show  that  •  wilful 
niiseonilnct  "  moans  some  miscondiut  to  which  the  will  is  a  party,  as 
opposed  to  accident  or  negligence.  If  .a  person  does  an  act  an(i  knows 
tliat  mischief  will  result  fi'oju  it,  or  if.  knowing  that  mischief  may  (u- 
may  iu)t  ensue,  he  does  an  act  with  in(liff(>renee  as  to  the  result,  that  is 
wilful  misconduct."  Bnimwell  Ti.  J.,  in  Lewis  v.  Groat  Westorn  II.  Co.. 
2G  W.  K.  14(1877). 

'•"On  arrival  of  a  ship  at  London,  the  goods  were  refused  admission, 
being  prohil)ited  by  the  laws  of  England,  and  as  .soon  as  it  was  discov- 
erod  that  they  ooidd  not  l)o  landed,  the  consignees  and  master  agreed 
that  the  goods  should  remain  on  Ixjard.  and  t)e  rettnaied  to  N'ew  York, 
"  to  the  shippers  at  their  risk,"  and  an  indorsement  was  nnide  on  the 
bill  of  lading  to  that  effect.  'I'ho  return  frtnght  was  a  sum  exceed- 
ing the  freight  from  Xew  York  to  Tjondon.     Hdd.  tlmt  the  shipowner 


I  i 


f'll 


vin.] 


CONSTItlTTION  OF  CONTItACTS. 


255 


Wenfcrii  Jidf'hrat/  Compaiit/^''^  i\  [jiisscnj/cr  on  iin  oxcur- 
sion  train  received  a  ticket  will;  a  condition  printed  on  the 
hack  declaring  that  I'tiiiiiagH^  was  to  he  "at  pa.s.>:cnger's 
risk."  Ilis  hairgajre  >ias  h)st  tlirough  the  negligence  of  the 
carrier.  It  was  heUl  that  tlie  case  of  baggage  of  a  passen- 
ger was  not  within  the  [)rovisi()ns  of  the  Railway  Canal  and 
'J'ratHc  .Vet,  and  that  the  company  was  not  responsihlo  for 
the  loss.  'I'his  case  has,  however,  hi-en  recently  overruled, 
and  it  is  now  held  that  a  similar  condition  jirinted  on  a  ticket 
is  void  under  the  Railway  Canal  and  TratKc  Act.''''  In  the 
former  case,  Mr.  Jirrff,  of  counsel  for  i)laintiffs,  cited  from 
Story  on  Bailments  '""  tlie  following  language  :  "  The  doc- 
trine seems  now  Hrmly  established  both  in  England  and 
.Vmei'ica,  that  the  responsibility  of  coach  proprietors,  earrj'- 
inii  passenixcrs  with  their  bairiraire,  stands  as  to  their  baau'aire 
upon  the  ordinary  footing  of  connnon  carriers."  But  all 
the  judges  expressed  their  dissent  from  the  proposition.  It 
may  now,  however,  be  regai'ded  as  stating  the  present  rule 
of  the  law,  both  in  this  count I'V  and  in  England. 

§  I'SS.  "  Oil  Lakes  or  Jiirrrs." — A  clause  in  a  ])ill  of 
lading  that  the  carrier  will  not  be  responsible  for  loss  or 
dama^rc!  "  on  the  lakes  or  i-ivers"  means  in  the  navijxation  of 
the  lakes  and  rivers,  and  accordingly  where  a  (juantity  of 
wheat  was  lost  by  the  sinking  of  a  wharf  I)oat  on  which  it 
was  stored,  awaiting  the  arrival  of  the  packet  on  whii'h  it 
was  to  be  slii[)ped,  the  loss  was  held  not  to  be  within  the 
exception."" 

was  rcspoiisiltlc  for  tlie  (Miibczzlcinciit  of  uny  part  of  tlie  goods  between 
the  time  of  tlie  (list  shipment  at  New  York  and  their  retnrn  there, 
though  the  onstom  house  otUeers  were  on  board  during  the  time  the  ves- 
sel was  in  Lonilon.  and  might  have  embezzled  the  goods.  Emljezzle- 
tnent  was  one  of  tiie  risks  the  master  assumed,  and  the  stipulation  in  the 
agreement  that  the  goods  were  to  be  at  the  shipper's  risk  could  not 
have  been  designed  to  throw  such  a  loss  upon  them.  Sehieffeliii  v. 
JIarvey,  0  Johhs..  170;  n.  c.  at  nisi  priuK,  Anth.  X.  V.  .")0,  (1810). 

«^3  11.  &  C,  135  (18(!4). 

iw  Cohen  v.  South  Eastern  U.  Co..  L.  R,  2  Ex.  D.  i'ui  (1877). 

»»  §  4{li). 

.'«»St.  Loui>  &v.  R.  Co.  V.  Snmok.  1!)  Fnd.  1502  (1S74). 


'■3 


T  n 


250 


TIIK  CONTliACTfS  OF  C'AHlilKKS. 


[ClI.   Mil. 


§  l^<!>.  •'  On  the  Train." — This  i)lira.s('  li:is  icccivod  in 
one  case  an  exteiulcd  eonstruction.  A  di'ox cr  liaviiii;  received 
a  "stock  jjass,"  allowiiiL!:  liim  to  ride  free  with  his  callic 
l>ut  i)rovidiiiu'  that  its  acceptance  shouUl  he  coiisiiU'red  a 
waiver  of  all  claims  for  injury  *'  received  when  on  the  ahoM- 
train,"  and  intendinu'  to  u'o  with  them,  loaded  them  n\n)\\ 
the  train,  and  afterwards  in  passinu'  the  ti'nder  to  the  engine 
was  strui'k  iii)on  the  foot  l)v  a  laru'e  stick  of  wood  thrown 
from  the  tender  by  the  engineer  and  seriously  injured.  'I"he 
injury  Wiis  held  to  he  within  tlu-  stipulation,  and  that  it  W!;'< 
not  necessary  that  he  should  have  been  actually  riding  on 
the  train  at  the  time."'-'  IJul  inth(>  same  IState  it  is  held  that 
the  phrase  "  ridin<r  free  '"  in  a  contract  that  '*  jjcrsons  ridinii' 
free  to  take  charge  of  the  stock  do  so  at  their  own  risk  of 
personal  injury  "  does  not  cover  an  injury  to  one  while  en- 
gaged in  loading  the  stock,  and  who  it  did  not  appear  was 
to  take  passage  on  the  train."'' 

§  1!)0.  "  Packayf'r—'6iiv  "  Article.'' 

§ljn.  "'•  Pcrih  of  the  Lake" — ISee  "Dangers  of  Navi- 
gation." 

§  li>2.  '^Pcvih  o/  tlte  7i'/m-."— See  "  Dangers  of  Navi- 
gation." 

§  1!>3.  '^  Perils  of  tilt'  ^Sea." — See  "Dangers  of  Navi- 
gation." 

§  1{>4.  '■^Perishable  Property." — Mature  merchantahle 
corn  is  not  within  the  exception  of  "  perishal)le  property.""'* 
"  Perishable  i)roperty  in  the  commercial  sense  is  that 
which  from  its  nature  decays  in  a  short  space  of  time  with- 
out reference  to  the  care  it  receivs.  Of  that  character 
are  many  varieties  of  fruits,  some  kinds  of  liquors,  and 
numerous  vegetable  productions."  liut  not  goods  which 
with  reasonable  care  can  be  |)reserved  for  many  years."""' 

i«2PouclR'r  V.  New  York  (Vnt.  K.  Co..  4!)  N.  Y..  •H)\\  (1872).  Soo  also 
Gallin  v.  Lomlon  Ac.  K.  Co..  L.  ]{.  10  l^  IJ.  i\i.  i  Cent.  L.  J.  J17  (Is;.*.) 
ancl«H^',  Caj).  IV,  ij  !l(5. 

'«■•', Stinsou  V.  Xtnv  Y'ork  Cent.  K.  Co.,  \V1  N.  Y.  :{;{;{  (18«:)). 

"■-<  Illinois  &.V.  H.  Co.  v.  McClclIan.  .>(  111.  .-)S  (ISTO). 


CH.  VIM.] 


CONSTRUCTION  OP  CONTR    CTR, 


257 


§  1!»').  '•'■  l^iJot,  M<jHter  or  MarinevH.'' — Acliiusc  in  a  l)ill 
of  liidin*r  ox('iiii)lin*j  the  owners  from  nci^ligonec  or  default 
of  the  "pilot,  iiKLster  or  luariuers,"  does  not  exempt  them 
from  liability  foi"  nejrlijrenee  of  stevedores  employed  ))y 
them  to  unload  the  vessel.'*"'  Nor  is  the  purser  of  a  vessel 
within  the  terms  "  master  or  mariners."^"'  In  GuiUaimie  v. 
llomhimj  dr.  Packet  Companij,^^  a  carrier  jiave  a  l)ill  of 
ladinjf  for  <;oods  which  contained  a  stipulation  ahsolvinji' 
him  from  all  responsibility  for  losis  occasioned  "  by  any 
act,  neglect  or  default  whatsoever,  of  the  pilot,  master  or 
mariners."  The  goods  arrived  safely  at  their  phice  of  des- 
tination, but  the  carrier  gave  them  to  a  carman  who  had  not 
been  authorized  by  the  consitrnee  to  receive  them.  It  was 
held  that  the  loss  was  not  within  the  exce|)tions. 

§  1!M).  ''■Place  of  Destination:" — On  the  back  of  a 
receipt  given  by  a  railroad  conipany  for  goods  received  f.ir 
transportation  was  this  condition:  "  The  c()mi)any  will  not 
hold  itself  liable,  as  common  carriers,  for  articles  of  freight, 
after  tlieir  arrival  at  their  phu-e  of  destination,  and  unload- 
ing at  the  company's  warehouse  or  depots."  The  goods 
were  received  at  West  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  to  I>e 
carried  to  Cleveland,  Ohio,  marked  "  T.  H.  C,  Cleveland, 
Ohio,"  and  also  "care  Western  Transportation  Co.,"  u  cor- 
poration whii  li  was  t(»  nn'cive  them  at  the  terminus  of  the 
railroad  at  East  Albany.  While  at  the  warehouse  of  the 
I'ailroad  at  East  All)any  and  before  the  transjjortation  com- 
piiiv  had  received  them,  they  were  destroyed  by  tire,  with- 
out fault  of  the  railroad  company.  The  latter  was  held 
lial)le.  The  "  place  of  destination"  was  not  the  i)oint  on 
the  carrier's  route  where  he  was  to  deliver  the  goods  to  an- 
other carri<'r,  but  was  the  ultimate  destination — that  point 
on  the  road  of  the  first  or  connecting  carrier  at  which  the  con- 
sii:iiee  was  to  receive  the  goods,  according  to  the  usual  course 


'"«  Ziui;^  V.  I[o\vl;ui(l.  5  Daly.  VM\  (1S47). 

'"■  Spiiiettf  V.  Alias  Stcanisliip  Co.  14  Hun.  lOO'  (lS7.>i). 

'»^  1-2  X.  Y.  -Ill  (isro).  ami  see  Gleudell  v.  Thoiusoii.  50  X.  Y.  lltl 

(1S74). 

17 


1-^;.^ 


258 


TMK  CONTItACTS  ( »!•'  CAUUIKHS. 


[Cir.   VIII. 


of  Imsiiicss  of  tlic  fMiricr." '  By  tlic  pi'iiitcd  conditions  cf 
a  bill  (»f  la(lin<r,  ai;  cxpri'ss  conipany  contracti-d  for  exemp- 
tion from  all  responsiitilil y  for  the  propei'ty  shipped  after  its 
arrival  at  its  "place  of  destination."  1'he  cotton  was  car- 
ried to  its  destination,  and  was  there  deiiveicd  to  the  wronir 
person.      It  was  held  that  the  company  was  liable. '"" 

§  1!I7.  "  /'orfo/  Disc/Hiri/c. — The  words  **  port  of  dis- 
«'liar;jfe'"  in  a  clause  in  a  Itill  of  ladinif  rccjuirinir  <laims  foi- 
loss  or  damaii'e  to  he  made  to  the  ap'iit  of  th<' carrier  at  the 
•'  port  of  discliai\<>('"  I'efer  to  the  port  to  which  the  j^oods. 
for  a  loss  whereof  a  claim  is  made,  wei'c  shipped.'"' 

§  l!tS,  "■  /*r/r//i^i/f'  of  I{(^->S////tpi)i(/." — The  "pri\  ilc^a- of 
ir-sliip|)inj:"  is  reserved  in  a  hill  of  ladinir  to  allow  the  car- 
rier to  re-ship  the  jroods  in  another  boat,  without  renderiii!:' 
him  responsible  for  the  conse(|uences  of  a  deviati(»n.''-'  Hut 
it  does  not  dischariic  the  boat  from  any  liability  not  excepted 
in  the  contract:  and  th(tn<ih  the  rii:ht  is  secured  of  trans- 
shippin<r  on  aiioth<'r  boat,  the  liability  continues  until  the 
goods  are  safely  delivered  at  the  port  of  destination,  if 
under  the  like  circumstances  the  carrier  would  be  liable  had 
the  loss  occurred  on  his  own  boat.'"'  It  is  a  privilep'  re- 
served to  the  boat  and  not  an  additional  imdertakiuLr  <»f  th'- 
('arriei'.'"^     It  is  not,  theref(»re,  a  bi'cach  of  his  conti'act  if. 


'  I'*  - 


m  AyiTs  V.  Wcstcni  Co.  14  Jiliitclif.  !•  (ls7(;). 

'"'  Southern  Kx.  Co.  v.  Crook.  It  Ala.  tCS  (1S7()). 

'■'  Knell  V.  United  Suites  lic.  Sle:iinslii|)  Co.  :{;{  \.  Y.  (,S.  C.)  4'J;i 
(1S71). 

'"'•'  IJnt  where  a  currier  receives  jjoods  to  he  eonveyeil  with  "  privileire 
of  re-shipinnj,'."  anil  the  ^^oods  ari'  re-ship|»ed  on  a  hoat  which  deviale- 
froni  lier  ronte.  tlie  carrier  is  liahle.     Little  v.  Senijile.  S  Mo.  !)!•  (IMH). 

'■''Carr  v.  The  Miehij,'an.  27  Mo.  1!"!  (IsriS);  Little  v.  Seniple.  8  Mo. 
Oil  (1K4:{)-  "  It  '"^  '>"t  a  jirivilcf^e  to  tlie  carrier  in  the  execution  of  his  con- 
tract to  convoy  and  deliver,  insert(!d  for  his  own  benefit,  to  secure  him 
the  advantajrp  of  as  <;reat  a  portion  of  fieit;ht  as  lie  could  earn,  and  to 
tlirow  upon  tlie  owner  any  increase  of  expense.  'I'lie  relation  of  cari'ier 
continues  from  the  shipment  of  the  >:;()ods  until  their  arrival  ut  the  des- 
tined port  and  deliv'ery."  Mefii-e^or  v.  Kil;;ore.  (i  Ohio.  WTtS  (1S;{1 ; : 
Whitesides  v.  Russell.  8  W.  it  S.  44  (1S41) ;  Diinsoth  v.  Wade.  ;{  III. 
285  (1S4()). 

'■<  (ioods  were  shipped  from  N'esv  Orleans  to  Cincinnati,  und'T  hills  of 


an. 


cir.  VIM 


] 


coNSTiu  rnoN  or  contracts. 


259 


111])- 
r  its 


(•!ll'- 


()i:ir 


<li.«- 


)(|S, 


I'   OI 


cai- 
riiiU' 
But 

IIIIS- 

tlio 


li:i(l 


th.' 
t  if. 


4'J;! 


iativ 
•<4\V). 

Mn. 


Iiiiii 
i\  It) 


(los- 

<   III. 


by  reason  of  low  Wiitcr,  his  boat  is  ol)sirii('t('d  and  he  fails  to 
(h'livcr  the  iioods  wliirh  In  i«'-slii;)j)ini:'  he  niiirlit  have  de- 
livered.'''' 1)111  the  ('!;uise  only  prives  power  to  transfer  to 
another  boat,  and  will  not  aiithori/e  a  temporary  storiiij;  of 
the  li'oods  on  a  wharf-boat  at  the  point  of  re-shipment.'''' 
The  additional  cxix'iise  of  re-shippinu'  i^*  lo  be  borne  by  the 
vessel  on  which  the  "oods  were  Hi'  *  sent 


177 


§  l!)i>.   "  QnaiiUhj  Gaarioifccd . 


Ti 


le  words  "  quantity 


jiiiaranieed,"  in  a  l)ill  of  ladiiiii'  of  ^raiii,  mean  that  the  bill 
of  ladinu"  is  eonelusive  evidence  of  the  Jimount  of  iifrain  to 
be  delivered,  and  if  it  fall-;  short  the  carrier  will  jiayfor  the 
shortaue.  In  liis-<i'l  >:.  (Janiphi']!,^''^  it  is  said  :  " 'I'liere  has 
been  considerable  litiiration  in  the  courts  irrowinj;  out  of  tho 
chiims  of  consignees  ;nrainst  carriers  for  sliortaijo.  and  it 
must  always  be  ditlicult  to  show  whether  the  shortaue  was 
occasioned  by  the  miscoiuUict  of  the  cari'ier  or  some  mistaken 
in  the  measurements.  Hence,  some  years  since,  the  »'lauso 
was  inserted  in  bills  of  ladiiiiT  upon  the  canals,  that  the  con- 
siiiiiec  miu'lit  make  a  deduction  from  the  frei;j:ht  on  account 
of  shortair<'  in  substantially  the  form  contained  in  the  bill  of 
ladinir  in  the  case  of   .}frf/«'r  v.  I^cck 


1711 


It 


>eems  to  have 


been  suppos(>d  that  such  a  clause  would  make  the  carrier  re- 
sponsible for  the  quantity  specitied  in  his  bill  of  ladiiiii',  but 
the  Court  of  Appeals  held  otherwise,  .aiul  recently  the  words 
'  (piaiitity  guaranteed'  have  b(>en  inserted." 

§  2()(».  "•  Itcstraiiils  of  Priiweti.'''  —  An  exception  in  a 
bill  of  hidini,''  of  acts  or  I'cstraints  of  princes  and  rulers, 
refers  to  the  forcDde  interference  of  a  State  or  the  ijovern- 

liuliiisi  in  tin'  iisii;il  form,  iiiiili'i-iiikiii"-  for  tlii'ir  dtiliverv.  and  <^oiitiiiniii.<? 


the  woimIs  ••  i)i-ivil<'<j,'t'  of  ro-sliippiiii. 


At  till'  Oliio  Falls  the  l)():it\Viiit(tl 


ii  iiionth  licfnic  tlid'c  wii 


UiT  (MMmyiii  to  CMiTV  licr  over.     Ili-ld  that  it 


was  eomix'icnt  to  show  hy  iisai^c  that  iiiidor  thcsi?  words  us  used  in  ii  bill  of 
l.adin;,',  it  war  not  the  cairici'V  duty  i<>  vo-shiu  instead  of  waltiiij;'  for  a 
rise.     liroadwi'll  v.  Hiitlcr.  1  Nfwb.  171.  •>  JIcLcan,  :'{)(i  (18r)4). 

'"  Stiiri,'css  V.  Till-  (/olnnibiH.  'IW  M«.  'I'M  (tsr)()). 

'™  (\irr  V.  Th."  Miclii>;an.  27  Mo.  1!U>  (18.')S). 

»"  ilatclictt  V.  Tlic  Conii)roini<(".  12  Lii.  Ann.  783  (lt;57). 

'"'■■Vl  N.  Y.  \\r<<>  (1S73). 

»''J2S  N.  Y.  ,WO(18G4). 


i 


2l!0 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAKIMKKS. 


[CH.  vm 


f. 


nifiit  of  M  country  tiikinji"  {)oss(>ssioii  of  (hoiroodss  hy  stroiiji' 
haiul,  and  docs  not  extend  to  legal  proeeedinjis  in  the  eonrts 
of  a  foi'eijin  eountrv.''*' 

§21)1.  '^  liofjftrr.-i.''  —  l\()l)I)ery  is  distingnisiied  from 
tliefl  in  coniainin^'  the  elements  of  force  or  fciir.  The 
word  "  n)h))ers"  in  a  hill  of  lading  will  not  jjrotect  the  car- 
rier where  the  goods  are  st(>len  from  him."^'  And  *'  thieves" 
is  rest'ictcd  to  thieves  external  to  the  ship,  and  will  not  ex- 
empt t  lie  carrier  from  lial)ility  for  theft  conu>iitted  hy  one 
of  the  crew  or  a  passenger,'"-  or  hy  the  purser  under  whose 
charge'  the  prop(>rty  is  placed."^*  Where  money  is  stolen 
from  a  carrier,  under  such  a  state  of  facts  as  will  exonorate 
him  from  liahility  for  the  loss,  the  carrier  will,  nevei-theless, 
he  answerable  for  the  money  in  iii(le/jifa(ufi  aN!iHhi2>''<if ,  if  he 
has  recovered  it  from  the  thief. ''*^' 

§  202.  "  Svjfofaaon."'' —  In  an  English  case  cattle  were 
shij)})ed  under  a  hill  of  lading  which  contained  the  follow- 
ing exceptions :  "Ship  free  in  case  of  mortality,  and  from 
all  (himage  arising  from  dangers  of  the  sea.  *  *  •  'p|„. 
owne!"  will  not  he  liable  for  any  loss  arising  from  suffoca- 
tion or  other  cause  •  *  *  ^j^.  ^hip  ii(»t  liai)le  for  acci- 
dent, injury,  mortality  or  jettison,  whether  shipped  on  deck 
ov  in  tlu'  hold."  Several  of  tlu'  cattle  hi-ing  suffocated  aiid 
kidiHl  from  the  vessel  oveiliu'ning,  it  having  I)een  sent  to 
,"":'.  v.ithout  |)roj)er  l)allast,  the  owner  of  the  cattle  was  hdil 
cutilleil  to  I'ccover  notwithstanding  the  exception  in  the  bill 
of  i.i'iini:.''^'  A  similar  ruling  was  made  in  this  cou'.itry 
wlici-v'  liic  suffocation  was  (hie  to  a  negligent  delay. ''^"'  'I'he.se 
arc    but    illu»^trations   of    the   ireueral    rule    that    conditions 


'  ■  I'inl.iy  '.-.  I.iviM'ponl  Slciiisisliii)  ("o.  2:>  L.  '1'.  \.  S.  •_'.">]. 

'-'  1)  'Kotls  liilil  v.llo.viil  Mail  SUmiii  I'lickct  (O.  7  Ex.  7:!l.  21  1..T.  K\. 

' -'I'lviur  V.  l.ivcrpoolAc.  Slciuii  Co.  \..\l.  '.K^.  B.  ."iH;.  i;i  K.  .1.  (^).  IJ. 

:-•'■.  11  W.  1!.  7.V2,:i()  1,.  T.  (N.  S.)  71 1  (1S71). 

'•  ■  S;.i;nMl('  V.  Atl.is  Sto:i!nsl>ip  Cii.  U  Hun.  100  (1S7S). 
'  '  ^M.  .fulMi  •,-.  Kxprcs?  Co.  1  WoDils.  (;!■_>  (ls7I  ). 
1^'  Leu  A-  V.  Diul-cor,  I..  ]!.  W  C.  P.  17.  nott>  (1SG7). 
'  ■'  >tii!i,nMii  V.  St.  i/)uis  iV:c.  K.  (/o..  (;.-)  Mo..  .Vill  (1^77). 


en.  VIII. 1 


C()\ST!!l'rTI(i:%   Ol"  C'ONTliACTS. 


2(il 


liniiliiiLr  ii  i'iirricr's  liaiiility  do  not  t'luhrace   his  ucLiiiii-i-iicc. 

§ -iO.'J.   ''  77,.Vrf^s-."    Sec  "  KoI)lH'rs." 

§  204.  "  'riii'omjli  irllluiKt  'rninsfci'." — Tlicsc  words  in  a 
hill  of  liidiuu'  iir*'  coustriK'd  sd-iclly  :  and  a  transfer  (»f  li-oods 
from  a  car  to  a  warehouse  for  a  temporary  purpose  is  luid 
to  amount  to  a  iii'eaeh  of  tiie  eontrai't .''" 

§  L^O.').  "  '/oirtni(/.  Assisf  IV.sw/.s'.'" — The  [)la;ntiff  shipped 
p)0(ls  at  Liverpool  on  hoai'd  the  Liberia,  a  steam  vessel  he- 
lonalni:'  to  a  steamship  company,  to  lie  carried  for  freiiiiit, 
p.iyai)ie  iiy  the  plaintiff.--  to  the  company,  to  Ijcnin,  on  the 
coast  (>f  Africa,  whicli  iroods,  on  the  iirrival  of  tl:e  Liberia 
at  IJonny,  were,  in  the  usual  course  of  the  business  of  t!ie 
company,  aiul  accordinjr  to  the  terius  of  the  liill  of  ladin<r, 
trans-shipped  on  board  the  Kwani,  a  snudl  bri'.nch  steamer 
beloniirin;  1<  he  company,  to  be  forwarded  thi>rebv  to  their 
destination  ;a  lienin.     'IMie  Kwara,  with  tluq)laintiff"s  <'(>o<ls 

'■'■  l{()l)iiis()ii  V.  .Merchants  Dispatch  Trans.  Co.  An  Iowa.  170  (187") ; 
Siicwart  v.  Mcreliaiils  Dispalcli  Trails.  Co.,  47  Iowa.  2:2!)  (1S77). 
Secvt'fs  ,1.  (lissi'iitcd  from  t\\o.  opinion  of  the  eonrt  in  tim  foniier  case, 
siiyinjj;:  "Tiie  opinion  liolds  as  a  matter  of  law  that  llie  unloading 
tlie  ;j'oods  at  Chicaj;'o  and  placing  them  in  a  warehouse  eonstitules  a 
tireaeli  of  the  eontraet.  What  is  meant  by  '  througli  without  transler'r" 
To  transfer,  according  to  Wchstei'.  means  to  remove  from  one  place  to 
another.  iOvideiU'v  this  was  not  the  meaning  contemplated  l)y  ilie  pai- 
ties;  if  so.  the  goods  never  could  have  left  tlie  State  of  Massachusetts. 
ft  is  well  known  and  understood  thei'e  are  several  distiricl  lailroads  lie- 
tween  \Vor>-ester,  Mas-^achnsi'tis  and  Cedar  Rapids.  Iowa,  over  \\hich 
Ihe  goods  had  to  ])ass.  and  it  is  the  iransfcr  from  i!ie  ieiininus  of  one 
.•o;i(!  or  depot  to  anoiher  that  is  referred  to.  In  some  plares  this  transfer 
is  mid''  with  wagon-;  or  d.M>s.  la  oihi-r-.  by  mi'ui;  of  swirehes  or 
side  trai'ks.  cars  loa.ded  witli  good«  are  trausferrei]  fiMui  one  road  to 
auotiicr.  Can  it  he  said  as  a  matter  of  law  the  goo_jl-^  ia  'Hie^tion  could 
nol.  withou'  a  breach  of  the  coutraci.  be  unloaded  and  iiiaced  tcmpoia- 
rily  in  a  wari'liouse.  and  then  reloaded  in  cars  (>vined  liy  the  defeiulant 
a:id  transferred  from  one  roail  to  another,  if  the  caj)'.ion  be  a  pa  it  of 
theconti'act  it  nuisi  hav<' a  riMsonable  (  on.-;rnciion.  and  therelore  i'  can- 
not be  said  to  proiiibil  a  transfer  from  (me  car  to  anoiher.  It  m;:y  be 
that  among  sliippeis  the  word -iraiisfei'.'  through  usage  or  cust(im.  has 
ac:iuireil  a  iiu-auing  which  will  warrant  the  construction  placed  thereon 
liy  th(!  maj'irity  of  the  court.  If  so.  siudi  custom  should  have  been 
aveii'i'd  and  proved.  Hnl  I  slreiinously  olijet't  that  the  la.w  attaches  any 
sc.eh  mcaiii:in'  thcivto." 


;;   ta 


A 


2(;2 


THE  CONTKACTH  OF  C.MiKIKKS. 


[('11.   VIII. 


f  I: 


V   • 

i   L 

^i|. 

lilk^' ' 

HilLiLii 

on  boai'd,  Irft  lioiiny  tim\  \^\•o(^^HH{v^\  on  her  voyajrc  to  HtMiin, 
o;il!iiii;()!i  her  W!iy  !il  Brass,  wlicrc  she  liad  both  to  (lis(liai'<>;(' 
and  lake  in  ('ai'>i:o.  Wliilst  lyinir  in  tlic  liarltoral  lii  ass,  and 
after  liavin/4'  discharjjjcd  anil  taken  in  carjio,  and  witliin  two 
Of  tliiTo  lioui's  of  hi'ing  n-ady  to  in-oct'cd  on  licr  onward 
voyasxc  to  IJoiiin,  tlic  Kwava  was  taken  hy  her  captain  at  the 
r('i|iicst  of  the  captain  and  owners  of  anotiiei"  vessel,  to  tlie 
mouth  of  the  Brass  river,  some  tiiree  miles  from  the  har- 
l)oi-,  for  tlu>  purpose  of  towin;j:  such  oth(>r  vessel  whieii 
iiaiJ  j;ot  stranded  on  the  hn^akers  in  attempt in;^'  to  cross  the 
bar  at  tlie  entrance  of  the  river,  and  in  her  efforts  to  tow 
tliat  vessel  off,  the  Ivwara  hersi'lf,  in  conseiiucnce  of  her 
screw  fjettinj;  fouled  with  a  rope,  was  wrecked,  and  the 
plaiiitii^"^s  jroods  wcr<>  lost.  It  did  not  ai)pear  that  human 
life  was  in  any  imminent  danjicr,  or  that  the  assistance  of 
the  Kwara  was  sounjlit  for  exce))l  to  save  propei'ty.  The 
bill  of  hidinii"  fxiven  !)V  the  company  on  ii'ceivinii' the  iroods 
at  Liverpool,  contained  a  clause  <i"i\inu-  to  thcii"  vi>ssels 
"  liberty  to  tow  and  assist  vessels  in  nil  situ;!t ions,"  and  also 
a  memorandum  in  the  mar<>;in  as  follows  :  "The  within  jioods 
t(»  lie  tiansported  at  Bonny,  and  forwarded  to  destination 
by  branch  steamer  at  >hip's  (wix-nse  but  shipi>ei''s  I'isk." 
In  the  action  by  tlu>  plaintiffs  to  recover  the  value  of  tiieir 
^oods,  it  was  held  that  under  the  expi'css  woi<ls  of  tiie 
clause  in  the  bill  of  ladinu'  iiivin;„^  liberty  -•  to  tow  and  assist 
vessels,  etc.,"  the  Kwara  was  ju'^iilied  iind  protected  in  li'o- 
in^•  to  the  assistance  of  th(>  other  vessel  in  the  manner  and 
und(M'  the  circumstances  stated.''"'^ 

§  2()().   "  Uuavoidahlc   Acciflfiifs.'" — See    also    "  l)an<jjers 
'of  Navii>;ati<)n."-^The  distinction  between  "unavoidable" 
or  "  inevitable  "  accidents  ""  and  th(>  act  of  (Jod  is  best  ex- 
pnvssed   by  McCay,  -).,  in   C/ni/rcI  Lhic  v.   Lnirr;^'"'    "  Tin- 
latter  ('overs    onlv    natural    accidents,   such,    as    linhtiiim;', 


'^■'Stu;ir!  V.  Hritisli  &r.  Stoum  Xiiv.  Co..  ;?2  f,.  T.  (N.  S.)  .',")7. 
''■'  The  leniis  '>  uii;ivo;dMl)l(>  ai'i'id'Mits  "'  aiid  ••  iiicviiMhli'iii'cuii'iUs  ' 
siyiioiiyinoiis.     I'owli'r  v.  Davoiiport.  21  'IVx.  iii'd  (IS.'S).' 

'■"nooa.  -.():)  (is7;5). 


Mrc 


1^ 


(II.   VIII.]  CONSTUnCTION  OF  CONTUACTS. 


2i;;s 


tcmin'sts,  ('!irlli<|ii!ik(>s  iind  tlic  like,  and  not  accidents  aris- 
inyr  from  the  iicirliu'cncc  or  art  of  nunt.  To  make  onl 
the  case  of  an  exemption  for  a  <'arrier  against  either  tiie 
iict  of  (iod  or  unav()idal)ie  accident  there  must  he  a  vis 
iiKiJDr:  tlie  interfcrinu"  cause  must  he  irresistihh'."  In 
this  case  a  common  carrier  und<'rtook  to  carry  cotton 
under  a  special  contract,  in  which  it  was  stipuhited  tiiat 
he  was  not  to  he  iiahle  for  *'  unavoiihihh'  accidents.'" 
One  of  the  l>a<jrs  of  <'otton  was  h)st  hy  failing  into  th«'  river, 
in  conse(|uence  of  tlie  hreaking  of  the  '*^hog  ciiain," 
an  iron  rod  against  wliicli  the  cotton  was  piled  on 
the  deck  of  111"  hoat.  In  a  >uit  hrought  for  the  loss,  the 
di'feiitlant  proved  that  the  rod  liiid  heen  lately  exaniined, 
and  liiat  it  appeared  sound;  tiiat  it  had  previously  horne 
heavier  weights,  and  that  it  hroke  in  conse(|uence  of  a  hid- 
d(Mi  Haw.  The  defi'iidant  was  Ik  Id  lial)le.  "  It  seems  ah- 
sunlfosay"  said  the  court,  "that  it  was  not  possiMe  to 
have  avoided  the  l)reaking  of  this  chain  or  rod.  It  ought 
to  have  been  made  stronger;  it  ought  to  have  heen  t<'ste(l. 
The  case  is  one  of  simple  failure  to  have  a  good  vessel. 
This  was  doubt h'ss  an  accident,  and  were  that  tlu'  only 
woi'd  used  in  the  agreement  the  carrier  would  be  excused; 
I)u1  the  woi-ds  arc  far  stronger  than  this."  As  has  been 
s(-en  in  the  introductory  chapter,''"  this  phrase  has  received 
in  some  cases  a  very  different  interpivtation.  Thus  it  has 
been  held  in  Indiana  that  the  exception  of  '*  unavoidable 
dangers"  was  include<l  in  the  act  of  (Jod  and  did  not, 
(herefore,  affect  the  liability  of  (he  carriei*  at  common 
law.''-  In  (Jroshii  r.  Fifr/i  ^'■'  it  was  said  that  the  "act  of 
(jod,  inevitable  accident  and  dangers  of  the -sea"  were  words 
of  similar  import  which  would  excuse  a  loss  whether  <'ou- 
taineil  in  a  bill  of  lading  oi-  not  ;  and  the  same  doctrine  has 
bet>n   held  in  two  cases  in  the  .Vdmiraltv  courts."*^     Similar 


I'"  .1///.'  Caj).  1.  ij.'). 

'■'■^  Walpulc  V.  Uri(ly;.>s.  :•  Bliu  kf.  -222  (|S;(<>). 

!■'•■'  ]-2  Comi.  IK)  (is:is). 

''•MThc  (.'iisijo.  Dav.  ISl  (ISIl);  Tlic  Xew  .toivey,  Ok'otl.  (44  (l-^Xi). 


I 
■  I 


•s^v;  ■**«'^*'i><'-'  y^*:^^  •%'^ 


•  ■J 


2M 


THK  rONTItACTH  OF  CAKIMKItS. 


[rii.  vni. 


^r-  i 


views  wliicli  li;iv('  Ik-cm  t-xpi-csscd  in  I'ciiiisvlviiniii  ainl 
(ii'or^ia,'"''  liiivc  little  iiiitlioril  \ ,  in  liie  liist  ease  the  opinion 
l)ein<r  ii  lucre  (h'rfiiiii,  as  tlic  loss  was  liv  an  CAliaordinaiv 
Hood,  and  was  Ihcrcfoi'c  within  the  act  of  (iod,  while  in  the 
second  tiie  derision  is  overnilcd  liy  Ciuli'iil  Urn- r.  l.niri' 
just  r«'fen'ed  to.''"' 

^207.  "  Viiliif  (diif  ('(iiih'iifs  rnhiiDirn." — These  words 
in  a  bill  of  ladinu"  exclude  the  inference  of  iny  a<linission 
by  tlje  cai'rier  as  to  the  (|uantit y  or  (|uality  (d'  the  contents 
of  the  packaire  at  the  lime  of  delivery,  bcyoinl  wiiat  is  vis- 
ibh'  to  the  eye  oi'  apparent  from  handlini:'  it — nothinir  is 
implied  but  the  I'ceeipl  of  the  pi'operty  in  uood  order  cx- 
ter«?ally,  and  the  carrier  may  show  by  i)arol  that  the  value 
iind  contents  were  below  the  estimate  placed  upon  them  Ity 
the  shipper.'''"  The  carrier  has  complied,  prlina  Jarli',  with 
his  contract  when  he  has  delivered  the  box  or  case  oi'  otlur 
article,  externally  in  ir<>od  condition.  'I'lie  Iturden  of  |»ro(d' 
is  then  ui)on  the  shipper  to  show  that  the  contents  were  in 
•rood  onler  and  condition  when  shipped.'"**  On  the  other 
hand  a  i-eceipt,  for  example,  foi'  *'  boxes  of  raisins"  would 
imply  the  receipt  of  boxes  tilled  witii  raisins.''"'  liut  the 
effect  of  these  words  may  sometimes  I'csult  to  the  benefit 
of  the  shipper.  In  Fasseff  r.  Jfiuirk'^''*  a  bill  of  ladinir  was 
given  foi"  certain  cases  of  <roods  described  as  "domestics"' 
with  particular  marks  and  numbers,  the  words  "  contents 
unknown"  beint;  written  befoi-e  the  si^'uature.  One  of  the 
eases  not  beinjr  deliven'd,  the  shipper  was  permitted  to  show 
that  the  case  contained  j^oods  of  a  much  higher  value,  and 
to  recover  their  cost.      It   should   l)e  added,  however,  that 

''•«  MdiTison  V.  Diivis.  20  Pa.  St.  171  (IS.Vi):  Fisli  v.  <;iiiii)iiiiiii.  2  (Jju 
:{4!t  (l^'t7). 

■''•Tliis  f|iiosti()ii  i>  considered  at  mkkc  leiiirtli  in  ("a|).  !.§!;.").(!,  of  tliis 
treatise. 

''••^Tiie  California.  >  Sawy.  12  (ls71);  Tlie  Colnml.o.  H  Hlatclif.  :.21 
(18.')(t):  Clarl<  v.  Harinvell.  12  How.  272  (IS.M)  :  see  (intc  -(Jood  Order 
and  ( 'ondition." 

''•"  Wentwortli  v.  Tlio  Uealin.  IC.  I. a.  Ann.  \s  (ISC.l). 

'^^'The  IJellona.  I  Ben.  :m  (Is71;. 

-"':n-a.  Ann.  (i'.H  (IS(S), 


«'i 


i^ 


(•II.   VIII.]  CONSTRICTION  OK  CONTIlArTS. 


2(!.') 


the  evidence  sliowcil  tli:il    liie   misdcscript'KMi   wiis  not  iiiinle 
loi-   the    |nii'j)nse    of  iinii(t>iii'i-   oil    the    ( an'ier,  Mild    that  no 
higher  frie^lit  would  have   he<'ii   eliai'L'ed   had   the  real  eoii- 
tenls   heeii   Unitwii.      '•  ^^'e  I  !iiiil<."  said  the  eoui'l ,  "  t  he  de- 
seriptive  terms  ii-ed  ill  this  hill  nf  ladini:'  Mie  not  eoiielusisc 
upon  th«'  parties.     'IMie  ohjcct  (»r  the  iii»lniiiieiit  was  to  eni- 
iiody   the  writ  tell  ackiiow  lediiliieiit    of   the    receipt    ol'  a  <'er- 
;a;ii   numl)er  of  pacUajres   oi"  merchandise,  and   the  a^^'ec- 
nient  to  transport  and  deliver  tlieni  to  the  party  named.      It 
was  not  essential  that  the  contents  of  the  packaii'es  should 
he  staletl  :  and  the  master  must    he  considered  as  expressly 
declininii'  to  I)e  liomxl  as  to  the  c(»ntents  l»y  insertinjr  at  tiie 
foot  of  the  hill  of  ladinir  '  contents  unknown.'     The  pack- 
aii'es were  not  opene(|  so  that    he  could  examine  them  ;  and 
his  undertakiny:  was  to  delivei*  so  manv  iiackaires  of  certain 
marks  and  numbers.     Ilavinir  failed  to  do  this,  he  must  an- 
swer for  the  value  of  the  niis>inu'  packau'e  aecordinjr  to  its 
actual   contents.     The  rights   of  the  parties  should   in  this 
respect  he  n'ci|)r()cal.     Sui)pose  the  captain  had  heeu  al)le  to 
prove  that  the  missinjjf  ease  contaiiu'd  articles  of  much  less 
value  thiiii  those  denominated  'domestics'  it  is   very  clear 
that  liaviuii:  siirued  '  contents  unknowH  '  he  would  have  heen 
allowed   to  offer  such  proof,  and  on   estahlishiuir  the  fact, 
could  not   have  heen  held  as  for  the  value  of  a  case  of  do- 
mestics."    In  a  moi'e  recent  Kn^ilish  ease  plaintiffs  delivi'red 
to  the  (h'fendants,  to  he  carried  on  their  vessel,  a  ])acka<j:e 
described   liy  mistake  in  the   bill  of  ludinjr  tendered  to  tin- 
captain,  as    »»  linen  floods,"  but  before  siirnin<j:  the  captain 
stamped  on  the  bill  of  .ladinij   the    words    "  weiuht ,  value 
and  contents  unknown."     The  packajiic  contained  silk,  and 
two  [)ieces  were  found  to  have  been  abstracted  on  the  arrival 
of  the  ship.     Freiiiht  was  ])aid  as  for  linen  iroods,  heini?  at 
a  less  rate  than  that  reipiired  for  silk.     The  court  held  that 
under    the  bill    of    ladinji'  stamped    and  siirned  iis    al>ove, 
the   defendants  contracted  to  carry  the   packaize,  whatever 
its    contents,    and   that    they    weri'    liable    for    the    loss.-' 
•''I  I.cl)cau  V.  (Jencnil  Siciiiii  X:iv.  Co..  I..  11.  s.  < '.  I',  ss  (IS7:2;. 


..     I\ 


m 


•2{\(\ 


TIIK  CONTKACTS  OI'  CAItUIKKS. 


[('II.   VIII. 


]U 


§  20H.  »•  \'iriinfsih:-<s." — A  rnilroiid  t  ittiiptiiiy  iiii(|t'rl(i(»k 
t<»  curry  cultlc,  with  :tii  iiiri'ci'iiu'iit  for  cxfiiiption  fiorii  Utus 
<ir  diimai;*'  for  iiiiy  injury  ciiiiMj'd  l»y  tin'  "  viciousucss  "  of 
thoiiniiiiiils.  It  Wits  liflil  tliHl  if  tiu*  viu'i*  in  \vln<-li  llic  ciiltif 
wn'i'  |tlii<'('(|  were  (It'ffi'iivc,  I  In-  I'jirricr  would  lie  rcspoir-tildc 
for  :iny  injury  doiic  to  llii'  cmIIIc,  cvrn  tlioujxli  I  In-  vicioiiH- 
ncssof  lilt'  <'iiftlt'  niijilil  litivc  i'onlril»ul»'d  to  tlif  injury.'" 

§  '2i)\K  '*  Wii/rmf  mill  Ffil.'' — A  condition  in  u  conlraci 
for  the  lr:ins|>oi't:ition  of  live  stock  that  the  stock  is  to  l>c 
•'  wiilered  and  fed  l»y  th*'  ownci"  and  at  his  risk"  while  on 
the  cars,  refers  oidy  to  the  oi'dinaiT  sustenance  the  animals 
lUiiy  r('i|uire  in  the  course  of  transportation.  The  throwin;*' 
of  water  upon  the  cattle  f(U' the  purpose  of  cooliui;  tlu'in. 
and  which  in  hot  weather  is  often  al)S(dutely  essenli:d 
to  save  them  froui  dyin<^  of  the  excessive  heal,  is  not  with- 
in this  exception  ;  this  duty  still,  for  n'asons  of  pul>lic  con- 
venience, devolves  upon  the  carrier.-'"' 

§  210.  "  \\'i'iif/ii'i\  /ii/'iin'i'M  (icnisiniH'i/  /))/  I'/ir." — All  ex- 
emption fi'oni  "injury  to  any  ai'ticlc  of  ficiL'ht  diwiiiii' the 
course  of  tr.aiisportatioii,  occasioiie<|  Iiv  the  wi-.-ithcr  "'  will  not 
include  nei;lie;t  ,)ee,  as  where  a  railroad  company  in  tianspoi-t- 
iiiiT  fruit  in  cold  weather  used  a  common  l»ox  car  when  they 
should  have  used  a  refriiicrator  car.-'"' 

^211.  Ciiujlirf  iif  Ijiiirs. — The  rirle  that  eontr.acts  are 
in  <;;ener;d  to  he  construed  accordinir  to  the  law  of  the 
phuH'  where  they  are  made  applies  to  the  contracts  of  com- 
mon carriers,  'riius  the  liahility  of  a  carrier  who  uiider- 
t.ikes  ill  Mcxic(»  to  coiivev  i^oods  into  Texas  is  to  lie  «i'overncd 
iiy  tlu^  laws  of  Mexico.-"'  In  an  I'jiirlish  case,  S.  took  a 
ticket  in  lOnirland  from  a  steam  packet  company  for  the  con- 
veyance of  himself,  family  and  l»aij:;faire  from  .Southampton 
to  Alcx.'uidria,  and  from  .'^ue/  to  Mauritius.  T!ie  ticket  was 
issued   subject    to  a  condition,  si;.!:ned   hy  S.,  that   the  com- 


^■-'  lllindcs  V.  liOiiisvillc  K.  <'.).,  <)  Hiisli.  (!SS  (1S7:{). 

■^«  Iliin.)is<;(Mil.  It.  ('(..  V.  Ai!:iiii>.  ti  111.471   (isiiT). 

*'<  Morcliiiiits  I)isi);itcli  \-i\  (.'().  V.  ('Driifurtii,  I'.Col.  -Js!)  (IS77). 

*MJ)iiitii  V.  Boimi-tl.  itld'cx.  :!():(  (1>S7:!). 


l\ 


iV> 


III. 


II.  VIII.]  CONSTUirCTION  (tr  roNTIUCTS. 


2r.7 


jiiuiy  would  not    liold  IIiciuscIvch  liiihlc   for  «l!iiim;r«'  to,  oi' 

•  Ictf'iitioii  of,  |>iiss('n;.fci's'  l»:i;r;:'!i;jf»'.  In  tli<'  course  of  tlic 
journey  some  iirtii'le.s  for  personiil  use  \v«'i'e  lost.  It  wjis 
iieid  that  the  eontrael  was  to  !)«•  ronstnied  hy  the  law  of 
Mn<;land,  and  that  as  at  euninion  law  it  iso|)en  to  earriei-s  to 
limit  their  <'omnion  law  liability  l)y  speeinl  eontrael  with  ihe 
e«»nsi;;nors  of  j^oods,  the  loss  nf  S.  fell  within  the  .s|i|)iil,ited 
condition.-'""  The  same  |)ri!\ei|)le  ^'ovei-ns  contracts  of  cai'- 
lia^c  between  the  diffei-ent  States  ;■'"'  a  contract  made,  for 
example,  in  New  York  to  carry  jroods  to  I'oslon  is  ooverned 
l»y  the  law  of  New  V(H'k.-'"'*  It  will  he  presumed  that  the 
contract  (tf  a  railroad  company  of  another  State  is  not  iillni 
rives:'" 

In  a  New  llanipshii'e  ease  it  was  I'uled  th;it  where  a  con- 
iracl  is  made  l>y  a  common  carrier  in  one  Slate  to  transport 
troods  from  that  Stale  into  another,  and  the  jroods  are  lost, 
the  rii!;hls  of  the  parlies  are  ifoverned  l»y  the  law  of  the 
State  in  which  the  loss  happens.'""  Hut  in  a  late  <-;ise  in  the 
<ame  Stale  where  :i  common  carrier  undertook  to  Iranspoi'l 
;,'oods   from   a   point  in  the  Stat*'  of  Vermont  to  a  point  in 

■J*  r.Miiiisiil;ir  i^c.  SttMiii  N'mv.  ( 'o.  v.  Sliiiiid.  1 1  Jiir.  (N.S.)  771:  lit 
VV.  K.  1(111);   12  I,.  '1'..  i\.  S.)  MIS.  |>.  ('. 

->''  I'fiiii.-^ylviini:!  Co.  v.  Fiiiivliiltl.  !)!i  III.  u'ti(t  (ls7:i). 

•*^  A  slcniiiliKut  was  in  tin-  liiisincss  of  triui,-|iortin,u'  jjooils  i'roin  Nfw 
V'>ik  lo  I'rovidi'iii'r.  Tilt'  plMiiiliff  owiicii  (•iuriii;H's.  which  he  wlsiicd  to 
liavf  lraiH|ioil(Mi  to  lio-^loii.  Thi'  carriers  I'cccivcd  llicin  in  New  YorU. 
to  convey  them  to  Providence  (»r  Uo-ton.  and  Ihev  were  lost  iulhe.'^onnd 
near  lFnntin;:lon.  I,.  1.  //'■/(/.  that  the  conlraet  of  tlie  i)arties  was  to  lie 
-•ovenied  hy  the  laws  of  New  York.  Hale  v.  N.  .1.  Steam  Nav.  Co..  1.") 
Conn.  .".:!!!  (lS|:i).  A  hill  (if  ladiii;;'  execiiied  in  Oiiio.  of  niercliandi>e 
'liere  shipiied  to  he  ti'aiisjioi'ted  to  a  place  in  New  York,  which  hill  is  ile- 
livered.  in  iniisiiaiice  of  a  conlraet  made  in  luid  liv  I'ciidents  of  Ohio,  to 

•  lie  thi'ie  making;  advances  n|)on  tin-  faith  tliercof,  and  to  .('cnre  drafts 
drawn  fm'  sncli  advances  n|)on  parlies  in  Ne«  York,  i-;  an  Ohio  contract, 
.uid  is  to  l)e  conslriicd  hy  and  under  the  laws  ,'\nd  conunereial  n--a^ce»  of 
that  .State.     First  Nat.  Hank  v.  Shaw.  HI  N.  Y.  -Js:?  (1S7I). 

''■•MaKlMM'  V.  Camden  i<c.  R.  Co.  l.')  N.  Y.  .■)1  I  (1S71). 

-I'Miray  v.  .lackson.  .">!  N.  11.1)  (ls71).  (Joods  were  shipped  in  Oliio. 
hilt  were  lost  in  transit  in  New  York.  Ii  was  held  lh:it  as  to  the  h^s  (he 
I  ase  was  n'overni'd  hy  the  law  of  the  latter  Stale.     Uarier  v.  Wheeler.  ID 

.V.  II.  1)  risi!!)). 


2fi8 


TIIF  CONTlIArTS  OK  CAKUIKUS. 


[C'll.  VIJI. 


the  State  of  New  Iliuuitsliirc,  it  was  t-aid  by  the  SuprcTiic 
Court  of  the  latter  State  that  so  far  as  the  eoiitraet  was  to 
bi'  performed  in  Vermont,  it  woiihl  seem  to  be  ptvcrned  l)y 
the  law  of  that  State.'-'"  In  Uaaillci/  v.  Xorliiiru  Tmuspor- 
littUni  Coiupaiii/-^'-  \\u'  jury  found  that  by  the  law  of  lUinoi- 
where  tlie  ijfoods  were  shipped,  the  mere  receipt  without  ob- 
jeet:o!>  of  a  bill  of  ladinji;  which  limits  the  ca!'rier"s  li;i!)iii- 
tiesfor  lo-is  1)\'  lire  would  not  raise  a  pi'esumption  that  its 
terms  weri'  assented  to.  in  .Massachusetts,  where  the  cause 
was  tried,  the  law  is  that  a  ItilTof  ladinjr  or  shippiui:' receipt . 
taken  by  a  consiii-nor  without  dissent  at  the  fiiue  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  |)roperty  for  transportation,  liy  the  terms  of 
which  the  carrier  stipulat<'s  airainst  such  lialiility,  will  exempi 
the  carrier  when  t'.ie  loss  is  not  caused  by  his  own  nei:li- 
li'enct'.  The  court  held  that  the  rule  of  law  laid  down  in 
Illinois  affected  the  renu'dy  only,  and  that  the  law  of  the 
forum  as  t(»  the  implied  assent  of  the  shipper  to  conditions 
of  iadinir  must  prevail.  In  u  l^'nllsylvania  eas<'  plaintiff 
purchased  from  defendant  "  New  .lersey  corporation,  at  its 
ortice  in  Pennsylvania,  a  ticket  from  IMiiladelphia  to  a  plac<' 
in  New  Jersey,  for  which  he  had  his  trunk  checked.  Th-- 
trunk  was  lost.  It  was  held  that  as  the  contract  \v:is  to  be 
performed  in  New  riersey  by  a  New  Jersey  corpoi'at'on,  it 
was  to  be  jxoverned  by  the  laws  of  that  State,  and  that  an  a<'; 
r.f  the  Pennsylvania  le^'islature,  limitinir  the  liability  or 
railroad  companies  for  loss  of  baiiirau'e,  did  not  iipplv.'" 

A  contract  for  earriaii'e  which  is  valid  in  the  State  where 
it  is  entered  into  by  the  consij^noi',  will  ImikI  a  consii-iu-e  res- 
ident in  anoth  r  State. '■■'  In  an  Iowa  ease  a  I)!ll  of  l.Hlinjr. 
stipulatin;::  for  exemption  of  tlic^  cai'rie!"  from  lialiility  for 
losses  by  tire,  v.as  drawn  in  Connecticut,  where  such  ex- 
emption is  lawful,  and  whence  the  mei-chandisi'  was  to  be 
shipped  to  Iowa,  in  which  State  carriers  aj'e  iittt    pei'inittcd 


-I'  I{ixf(.nl  V.  Sinitli.  .VJ  N.  H.  :{."):>  (lS7-_>). 

-'•-'  IIT)  Miiss.  :i()l  (IS7t;. 

-I''  Hrowii  V.  CaiiKliMi  &','.  11.  Co..  s;5  pn.  St.  MKJ  (1S77). 

-'•*  l{ul)iit-()ii  V.  Mi'icliioits  I>i-^p:i(fli  'rrnn-.  (.'o..  1.")  lowii.  .170  (!s77). 


cii.  viir. 


CON'STIIUCTIOX  OV  COXTUACTS. 


2()i» 


to  limit  their  liahility.  The  jroods  wcro  transported  to 
C  iiiciiji'o,  111.,  uhoi'c  tliev  were  dcstroyccl  without  fault  of 
tiio  carrier.  Jii  an  action  broutiiit  a<:ainst  the  latter  hy  tlu; 
ronsi;jfnee  to  recover  their  value,  it  was  lu  Id  that  the  con- 
tract was  valid,  and  that  the  plaintiff  could  not  recover.'^'' 
Althoufih  where  a  contract  is  made  in  one  State,  and  suit  is 
l»rou<rht  in  another  State,  the  validity  of  the  contract  will  he 
determined  hy  tiie  law  of  the  State  where  it  is  made,  yet  it 
has  been  held  that  an  aj^reenuMit  exempiini!:  si  carrier  from 
liability  for  ne<rliir<'nc<',  made  in  New  York  and  to  be  exe- 
cuted there,  but  invalid  by  tlu'  common  law  of  Ohio,  can 
not,  in  the  latter  State,  be  ccnverted  into  a  cause  of  iictiou 
nu'rely  by  the  fact  that  the  parties  have  subsecjuently  come 
within  the  jurisdiction.-'""' 


.^H 


-'•■•  Tiilhott  V.  Mcrchiuits  itc  Trim-.  ( 'o., -11    !'\\!\,  217  (l-^".")),  mid   sec 
Mi'I>:iiii<'l  \.  ('hi(M;;o  ivc.  H.  Co..  2i  Io\\ii.-412  (ISOS). 
■^"i  K'lowltoii  V.  Krio  li.  Co.,  1!)  Oliio  St.  2(ji)  (lSG;)j. 


i;, 

if 

m 


ii 


imiiHiiimi 


1^70 


THIC  CONTRACTS  OK  CAUKIKK8. 


[cm.   IX. 


f 


CIIAITER  IX. 


niK    C/l'l>IIO\    OF    <()NSII)i:i!ATIO.\    AS    AI  TJU  TLN(i  CO^TIiA(•rS 
l.IMlTlXCi    I.IAIJILITV. 


<r:rTi<)N. 

\L\'2.  A  ('imsidcnitiiiii  Xrcfssary  to  Siipiiort  the  (."oiitract. 

2\'.i.  What  ('(iiis'uh'ratioii  SiitluMt'iit. 

21  I.  Carriers  of  I'asseii^^ers —  Limiting  Lialtility  for  Xeglij^eiu'e. 

■Jl.').  Duty  of  (,'aii'ii'r  to  I'assei.jicr  Itidiiiii;  Free. 

•JU!.  I'owei' to  Kva(U'  I.ialiility  in  Such  ('a>e. 

lM7.  Wliat  is  a  (iratuitous  I'as-eiii;er. 

•JIS.  'I'lie  ( 'a>e  of  a   I'"ree  Pass — 'I'iie  Ameriean  Doelriiie. 

•Jilt.  Tlie  I>oetriiie  ill  Louisiana  and  New  .iersey. 

■120.  'Die  Itoelriiie  in  New  Yorlv. 

221.  I'resiimiitloii  From  I'ossessioii  of  Fn  e  I'ass. 

222.  ('riiiiiiial  l.iahilitv. 


§  212.  A  ('(nisl(h'i-(itii)U  Xci'iasdfif  to  Siippitit  tin'  (loii- 
fmrt.  —  It  is  !i  I'ulc  of  law,  loo  radic'il  to  lu'cd  any  citation 
of  iiiithoi'ity  ill  this  place,  iliat  a  coiitiact  to  lie  Itindiii;;  rc- 
(liiircs  a  coiisidcratioii  to  support  it.  It  has  hccii  sim  n  that  a 
coiuDioii  carrier  is  hound  Ity  law  to  i)car  the  cxtraordiiiarv 
risks  attached  to  his  callino',  for  idl  who  may  choose  to  eiii- 
pioy  liiiii,  upon  the  terms  r)f  payinir  him  his  reasonable  com- 
peiisiitioii  therefor,  lie  can  not  refuse  to  receive  and  trans- 
port o()()d.s  f)ffcred  to  him  hecaiise  tlie  shipp«>rwill  not  assent 
to  their  heinir  carried  tmder  a  special  contract  limit  in;!  his 
ctnnmon  law  responsihility,  and  if  heslwudddo  so,  ho  woiill 
render  himself  lialile  to  an  Jiction.'      Now,  the  performatice 

1  .l)*<e,  Caj).  III.  §  ()!);    Mereaiitile  Miit.  liis.  Co.  v.  Cliase.  1    K.  I» 


ClI.   IX.] 


CONSIDKKATION. 


271 


of  :m  act  wliich  a  party  is  uiidor  a  Ic^ral  ohliiralion  to  per- 
form (Iocs  not  coii^^tit  lite  a  ifood  coiisidciat ion  for  a  promise.^ 
It  follows  from  this  that  as  a  common  carrier  is  hound  to 
carry  when  re(|uested,  the  mere  ai;reement  to  carry  docs  not 
furnish  a  consiih-ration  for  a  contract  in  dero<>ati()n  of  his 
responsihility  at  common  hiw,  nor  does  lils  ajireement  to 
carry  for  the  price  which  he  mijrht  charp'  in  case  his  lia- 
!)ility  was  not  limited  or  which  it  was  his  custom  to  char<je 
in  such  casi'.  It  has  sometimes  heen  said''  that  this  is  a 
matter  with  which  the  courts  can  no  longer  deal;  hut  this 
oi)inion  is  t'rroneous,  as  liu-  adjudications  cited  lielow  wili 
demonstrate/  As  said  hy  the  New  Voi'ii  Court  of  Appeals 
in  speakinirof  a  railroad  ticket  which  exempted  the  company 
from  liability  in  certain  circumstances:  "Like  all  contracts 
to  render  such  a  one  valid  it  is  indispensable  that  it  hav(* 
some  consideration,  which  it  would  not  have  if  the  passenger 
paid  the  full  far*-  lixcd  by  law.  That  is  all  which  the  con\- 
pany  is  allowed  to  receive  for  the  service  and  the  risk  unit^'d, 
and  it  can  no  more  demand  the  full  compensation  (»f  both, 
for  the  service  alone,  than  it  could  demand  the  fare  for  a 
hundred  miles  for  carrying'  a  passen<rer  tifty  miles.  If  the 
service  is  reduced,  the  amount  of  reward  must  be  reduced 
in  proportion  ;  and  if  the  company  is  relieved  from  the  risk, 


I) 


Smith.  lir>  (IS.-.!»):  Kiilty  v.  A(tiiiiis  Express  Co..  2  Mo.  (A|)i>.)  :{<)!».:< 
Out.  ]..  .1.  i:\'>  (l.S7(>).  Ill  SoiitlHM-ii  lOxprcss  Co.  v.  Moon,  'M  Mi-^s.  S'JJ 
(lS(i;{).  it  is  said :  ••  ("onsi<iiiors  liavc  only  to  insist  on  a  simple  receipt 
for  ttieir  p>o(N.  offeriiii;'  to  i)ay  reasoiialile  eompensation.  and  steadily 
refiisimt  tlie  art  fully  jirepared  reeeii)ts  limit  in,<>;  the  carrier's  liahility  and 
depriviiif?  the  consignor  of  his  legal  rights,  to  restore  in  practice  th<!  se- 
ciiiily  and  safety  which  the  law  affords.  'I'liey  will,  in  this  iiianner, 
avoid  the  losses  which  scheming  coriiorations.  under  the  guise  of  special 
agreements,  are  daily  inllieling  upon  lliein."  IJut  thi:-  remedy,  though 
ofieii  to  iIk'  luldic.  is  jiiactieally  useless.     See  ante.  Caj).  IIF,  ji  <!!". 

"  Addison  on  t'ontracts.  «;  -1. 

■'  As  in  Kirhy  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  2  Mo.  (App.)  *?(;{>,  ;$  Cent.  L. 
.1.  -I.C)  (IS7(i). 

*  Nelson  V.  Hudson  Kiver  R.  Co.,  4S  N.  Y.  4!t8  (t872)  ;  IJissell  v.  New 
York  Cent.  It.  Co.,  2.")  X.  Y.  412  (lH(i2) ;  German  v.  Chic  igo  i^ic.  ]{.  Co.. 
;»s  Iowa.  127  (IS74);  Fanihiun  v.  Camden  &e.  R.  Co.. ."..')  l»a.  St.  r>:t 
(1807; ;  McMillan  v.  Mii-higan  Ac.  li.  Co.,  IG  >Iieli.  79  (KsG7). 


> 


^M 


"'iimiiiwBWWWIiiij.' 


THE  COXTIJACTS  Of  (^AUKIKHS. 


[CH.   IX. 


1    1 


it  imist  inako  compoiisiition  for  that  relief  hy  the  reduction 
(.1  fare  or  otherwise.""''  A  ease  of  interest  upon  the  consid- 
eration required  in  aiireonu'uts  hetween  .shi|)pers  and  cai- 
riers  is  that  of  Gcnnrin  v.  Chicivio  Ji'tilvoad  Con)  pa  in/,'' 
decided  bv  the  Supreme  Court  of  Iowa,  in  1S74.  Tliere  a 
contract  for  the  shi])nient  of  cattle  stipulated  that  the 
owner  shoidd  assunu'  all  risk  of  injury  done  by  the  cattle  to 
each  other,  and  that  the  owner  should  he  permitted  to  jro 
on  the  train  in  charj^e  of  them.  'I'he  railroad  company 
rilled  f<tur  cars  with  a  part  of  th<^  cattle,  and  sent  them  off 
without  m)tico  to  him.  The  owner  theu  signed  the  contract 
above  mentioned,  not  knowin*;  that  any  of  the  cattle  had 
been  shipped.  It  was  held  that  the  consideration  for  the 
asrreement  was  that  the  owner  should  be  allowed  to  <;o  on 
the  train  with  all  the  cattle,  rilling  twelve  cars  in  all,  and 
that  as  the  owner  had  been  deprived  of  an  ojiportunity  to 
go  With  the  cattle  rirst  sent  off,  there  was  no  consideration 
for  the  agreen'cnt  as  to  them,  and  that  the  company  was 
not  released  from  any  liability  as  to  the  cattle  rirst  shi[)i)e(l 
l)V  reason  of  anything  contained  in  the  agreement. 

§  21.'5.  W/idf  ('oiisido'df/oii  Siiffirictil. —  It  has  been 
decided,  however,  that  a  reduced  compensation  is  a  sulli- 
cient  consideration  to  sup|)ort  a  contract  for  a  limitetl  liaidl- 
it\,'an<l  the  same  is  true  of  a  fre<'  pass."*  Whei'c  (he  bill  oi' 
lading  limited  the  liability  of  the  carrier  to  a  certain  sum  in 
ca^e  the  goods  were  lost,  and  contained  (he  words  •»  the 
shipper  declining  to  pay  for  any  higher  risk,"  it  was  held 
thai  these  words  showed  a  consideration  for  the  reduced 
risk."  So  the  words  "  tariff  rates  "  in  the  I)ill  of  lading  have 
l»ccn  construed  to  mean  a  less  rate  than  the  carriei'  might 
have  charged,  and  so  to  uphold  the  special  contract.'"     It  is 

•  lJi>si"ll  V.  \c\v  York  ('.'lit.  ]{.  Co.,  u>.')  N.  Y.  112  (1802). 

«;ts  Iowa,  127. 

■JSissoll  V.  \."\v  York  ('.mi(.  U.  Co..  25  \.  Y.  412   (1S(;2):  Xdsoii  v. 
Iliid-on  IMvcr  1{.  Co..  (S  \.  Y.  r.lS  (1S72). 

"  Bl,«.«i<ll  V.  Now  York  Cent.  U.  Co..  25  X.  Y.  442  (1S(;2). 
'  '•'  Fariiliani  v.  Caiiidcii  iS:c.  R.  Co..  55  I'a.  St.  y.\  HSf;;). 

1   Nelson  V.  Hudson  Itiv.^r  \l.  Co.,  4S  N.  Y.  4its  (isr2). 


I. 


h   ! 


<U.   IX.] 


COXSIDKUATIOX. 


•^(,> 


held  by  the  Supn'niP  Court  of  the  IJiilti'tl  Stalt's  llml  when 
:i  l)i!l  of  liiding  coutiiiiis  n'stri(.'tions  on  Ihi-  li:il)ili{y  of  tlit- 
oiirricr  the  couft  will  not  pivsumc  in  the  iil)S('ni'(^  of  testi- 
mony that  it  was  not  done  upon  profxT  and  suiii:'icnt  con- 
sideration."    And  a  similar  ruiinu"  has  hc-n  mad;'  in  Miehi- 


iran. 


§  21-1.  (.'((ri't'U'.'i  of  T*<issf')if/''rs  —  Littiifhir/  Liahlliti/  for 
T^Tcf/h'tjcncp. —  Followini;  the  Anieriean  doetrine  as  stated  in 
a  former  plae.','"  a  earrier  of  u  passenirer  wlio  has  i)aid  a 
eonsideration  for  his  passa<;e  ran  not  exempt  himself  from 
'lial)ility  for  dainaires  caused  hy  his  uwn  neuliu'ence  or  that 
of  his  sci'vanls,  hy  nr.y  conlract  which  ho  may  have  induced 
iiiscuslomer  to  appi'o\('."  Sucli  a  contract  is  void  as  apiinst 
ihe  policy  of  the  law.  In  Kniiiand,  on  the  other  hand,  an 
aLi'reeinent  of  tliis  character  is  valid,  and  will  bar  an  action 
for  an  injury  occasioned  hy  the  i.eu'liii'euce  of  the  servants 
of  the  carrier.  The  (juestion  of  public  [)olicy  so  much 
relied  upon  by  our  judires  is  but  little  noticed  by  the  Ensf- 
lisji  courts  in  this  class  of  cases.  Such  an  agreement  is  there 
looked  ui)on  as  very  similar  to  the  contract  between  master 
and  servant,  in  which  the  sei'vant  undertakes  all  the  ordi- 
nary risks  of  the  service,  includiug  risks  of  being  injured 
by  the  negligence  of  other  servants  in  the  same  employ- 
ment.''' Xo  trace  of  such  an  argument  is  to  be  found  in 
Ihe  American  reports,  although  the  conclusion  to  which  it 
leads  is  accepted  in  New  York.'" 

§  215.  J)nli/  of  Carrier  to  Passenr/crs  Hiding  Free. —  It 
lias  become  well  established  in  this  country  as  u  rule  of 
j)ublic  poliiy  that  common  carriers  must  exercise  the  same 
d('gree  of  care  in  carrying  persons  free  as  in  carrying  them 
In  the  leading  case  upon  this  i)oint  in  the  Su- 


for  hire. 


"  York  Co.  v.  (V'Mlral  R;iiln.:i<l.  ;<  Wall.  107  (ISCm). 
'-  .McMillan  V.  Miilii.>,'an  I'tc.  1{.  Co..  10  Mich.  7!)  (1S(!7). 
".1«<(',  Cap.  II.  §  -jsi 

"  Id.;  Ohio  itc.  K.  Co.  v.  Soll)y.t7  Ind.  471  (1S74). 
"  Hall  V.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  L.  H.  10  q.  H.4\i7  (1S7.')). 
^'^  Anlr.  Caj).  II.  §  .").">,  and  sec  pout.  §  220. 

'■  Flint  i-tc.  ii.  Co..  V.  Weir,  :!7  Mloh.  Ill  (1S77) ;  See  Williams  v.  Ta.v 
18 


y  ■' 


. ,  •  li 


274 


TIIK  CONTUACrS  OF  CAHHIERS. 


[ciI.  IX. 


prcme  Court  of  Iho  United  States,  the  plaintiff  was  a  stoek- 
Iiolder   in   the  defendants"   railroad  company   and   was  the 
president    of  another  railroad  eompany.      He   was   on   the 
road   of  the  defendants  hy  invitation   of  the  president    of 
the  eompany.  in  a  small  locomotive  car  used  for  the  conve- 
nience  of  the  olliccrs   of  the  com})any,  and   paid    no   i';in>. 
lie  was  injured  \)\  collision  of  this  car  with  an  eui^ino  whose 
drivei'  was  actini;'  in  disobedience  of  orders  that   had    hcen 
given  him  to  kee})  the   track  clear,     'i'lie   court    Itelow   in- 
structed tlu-  jury  that  if  the  plaintili    ...is  injured  through 
the  gross  negligence  of  one  of  the  servants  of  the  defend- 
ants then  and  there  employed  on  the  road  he  was  entitled 
to  recovt'r.     The  Sui)renie  Court  held  this  instruction  to  Ixv 
correct.  (iuiKi!.  »F.,  saying:   *'  'i'lii^^  duty  [that  of  a  carritu'] 
does  not  result  alone  from  the   considei'ation   paid    for   (he 
service.      It  is  imposed  by  tiie  law,  even  where  the  service 
is  gratuitous.     The  conlidence  inducc(l   ity  undertaking  any 
service   for   another    is   a    sulHcieiit    legal    consideration    to 
create  a  duty  in  the  [)erformance  of  it.     It  is  true  a  distinc- 
tion has  been  lake)i   in    some   cases    between   simple    negli- 
gence and  great  or  gross  negligence,  and  it  is  said  that    one 
who  acts  gratuitously  is  lial)le  only  for  tlu'  latter.      Hut  this 
case  does  not  call  ui)on  us  {a  detine  the  difference  (if  it   l)e 
eapal)le  of  delinition)  as  the  verdict  has  found  this  to   be  a 
cas(>  of  gross  negligence.      When  carriers  underlidic  to  con- 
vey   persons    by    the    powerful  and    dangerous   agency    of 
steam,  pul)lie  policy  and  safety  re(pni-e  that  they  be  held  to 
the  greatest  possible  care  and  diligence.      And  whether  tlu^ 
consideration  for  such  transportation  be  pecuniary  or  other- 
wise, the  personal  safety  of  the  passengers  should  not   Ix; 
left  to  the  sport   of  chame   or  the    negligence   of  careless 


lor.  4  Port.  2;U(IS:!(;j;  Fay  v.  Tin-  N'cw  World,  1  Cal.  ;!1S  (1850): 
Gordon  v.  (Jrand  Street  J{.  Co..  10  lijirlt.  510  (lS(i;{);  Indiana  It.  Co.  v. 
Mnndy.  21  Ind.  IS  (18(J:{);  (Mrio  Ac.  R.  Co.  v.  Midiling.  ;?(t  ill.  !l  (IS(il) ; 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  ('o.  v.  Head.  :}7  Id.  4SI  (ISd."));  IVrkins  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  21  X.  Y.  lt)(J  (ISCd) ;  Fliun  v.  I'hUadelphia  etc.  R.  Co..  I 
I  [oust.  4(J!I  (18r)7). 


Hi 


en.  IX.] 


CONS  1 1)  Kl{  ATI  ON. 


275 


iigcnts.  Any  imfrligoncc  in  such  cases  may  well  closcrvc 
the  cpitlict  of  '  <ri'()ss.'  "  "* 

§  2l().  Poirer  (o  Ei'ade  Llahilih/  In  Hitch  Ciixc. —  liut 
tliougli  tlie  (Inly  of  the  carrier  lowartls  passeiifrers  paying 
fare  and  those  traveling  free  is  the  same,  it  has  lieen  much 
(lehaled  whether  in  the  latter  case-  the  carrier  shoiikl  not  l)e 
perinitled  to  throw  upon  the  passenger  all  the  risks  of  the 
journey,  in  consideration  of  the  gratuitous  service  rendered 
hy  him.  in  Kniiland  and  Ireland  such  a  contract  is  valid, 
for  the  reason  that  there  a  free  i)assenger,  independent  of 
any  contr.'ict ,  is  a  mere  licensee  to  whom  the  cari'ier  owes 
no  duly.'" 

§  217.  What  is  a  (Jrahtltoiis  l*ass('nii<'f. — The  distine- 
lion  upon  which  this  discussion  is  founded  renders  the  (pies- 
tion  as  to  who  is  to  be  considered  as  a  free  passenger  an 
imporlanl  one,  and  one  sometimes  disregarded.-"'  Any  con- 
sidci'alion  moving  to  the  carrier  would  seem  to  change  the 
I'clalion.      A   person    who  receives   a  free  pass  as  part  of  a 

'-  IMiil;i(l('l|ilii:i  ^ic.  K.  To.  v.  Derby.  IJ  llow.  -KIS  (IS.V2).  'I'liis  doc- 
ti'iiu' was  rc-iilliriiKM!  in  'I'lic  New  World  v.  King.  Iti  JIow.  4()!)  (I8."):i). 
But  s(M"  IJoycc  V.  Andcrsdii.  l!  I'd.  irid  (ls2!)).  wlierc  it  is  s:iid  that  tlic 
carrier  <if  a  shuc  witiioiit  reward  wuiild  lie  liable  only  for  jjross  nej^li- 
;,M'nee. 

'■'Duff  V.  (ireat  Western  li.  Co..  lit  Ir.  L.  T.  100  (1878);  \cville  v. 
(.'ork  I've.  I{.  ('0..1I  Ir.  L.  T.  (lii.  2  Cent.  I..  J.  :Ui(l  (187.5).  In  Hall  v. 
Xortli  Kasiei'u  K.  Co..  I..  H.  10  (,).  H.  I;i7  (187.*)).  the  plaintiff  Wiis  trav- 
eliii;X  on  a  drover's  ticket,  which  had  printed  on  it  certain  conditions 
e.\eni,itihji:  llie  railway  company  from  lialtility  for  the  safety  of  the 
plaintiff  while  on  his  jonrney.  'I'he  foi'm  of  these  conditions  was  .sncli 
as  if  it  was  intended  that  the  holder  of  the  tii  ket  should  sign  the  con- 
ditions. The  idaintift  did  not  si<;;n  the  conditions,  I)ut  traveled  on  the 
railroad  with  his  live  slock  without  payinic  any  fare.  'V\w  court  held 
that  tlie  plaintiff  was  bound  by  the  conditions  printed  on  the  ticket  the 
same  as  if  he  had  sii>ned  tliem.  l$hu'khurn,  . I. .said:  •*  It  is  true  the 
plaintiff  did  not  si;;n  the  ticket,  and  he  was  not  asked  to  do  so;  but  he 
traveled  without  paying  any  fare,  and  lie  must  be  taken  to  be  in  the 
same  i)i)sition  as  if  he  hail  signed  it.*" 

'•'''  In  an  Indiana  case  the  jjlaintiff  was  spoken  of  as  a  free  passenger,^ 
the  fact  being  overlooked  that  he  had  paid  freight  to  the  company  for 
goods  which  he  had  in  charge;.  Indiana  Cent.  1{.  Co.  v.  Mundy.'Jl  Ind. 
48  (ISdIi).  See.  also.  Higgins  v.  Nesv  Orleans  iV:c.  R.  Co  ,  -28  I.a.  Ann. 
i;i:!  (I87ti). 


I 

{ 
) 


m 


270 


THE  CONTHACTS  OF  rAIJHIKKS. 


[('II.   I\. 


K'onlriict  Ix'iK^Hcijil  to  the  carrier,  as  for  ('\aiui)I('  a  di'ovcr 
■who  n'ci'ivcs  a  pass  1o  (i-avcl  with  stock  on  whicli  lie  ])avs 
freiii'lit,  is  not  nierclv  a  urat nitons  passenircr.-'  and  this 
even  thonjrli'his  ticket  may  iiave  the  words  "free  pass" 
l)i'inted  niii>n  it."  Tiie  prices  which  he  pays  for  tiie  trans- 
l)ortation  of  liis  cattle  ami  the  care  which  he  takes  of 
them  on  tlie  jonrney  are  a  sntlicient  consideration  for  his 
own  j)assaire.  A  contract  of  this  kin<l  is  anaIo_i>dns  to  tiiose 
in  Pierre  r.  Mihraukee  <(•  .S7.  I'aul  Jiiilhi-d  1/  ( 'niiijidin/^-' 
where  corn  was  shipjx'd  hy  a  railway  company  which  aurecd 
to  return  the  emi)ty  hairs  fre(>,  and  llai'r'nvjtitn  r.  MrSlmtie,-^ 
wliere  a  carrier  undertook  to  transport  uoods  and  sell  them, 
and  hrinjr  the  money  arisinir  from  the  sale  hack  with  him 
without  charire.  In  these  cases  it  was  held  that  neither  the 
carriaire  of  the  emjjty  I)a_ifs  nor  the  retui-n  of  the  money 
could  he  considered  as  oratuitous.  In  a  late  case  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  Slates,'-''  the  plaintiff,  who 
resided  at  Portland,  Me.,  heinij  interestcMl  in  a  car  <'ouplim!' 
which  had  been  in  use  upon  the  car.s  of  the  defendant  com- 
l)any,  was  requested  1)V  its  ofHcers  to  meet  them  at^NIontreal 
to  arrange  about  its  future  us(>,  they  ayreein<;  to  ])ay  his 
exi)ense.s.  In  pursuance  of  the  aiTanijement  he  was  fur- 
nished with  a  i)ass  which  ])urported  to  be  a  "  free  ticket," 
and  which  exemjited  the  company  from  liability  for  the 
neirligence    of    its    servants.-"'      Durinir   the;   jjassaire    Irom 


ii-' 


2' Oliio  Ac.  K.  ("o.v.  S('ll)y.  17  fnil.  471  (lS7t);  (.'levoljind  I'tc.  I{.  Co.  v. 
Ciiniin.  lit  Ohio  St.  1  (isO'.t) ;  I'cMinsylvaniu  R.  Ce.  v.  Hciulcrson,  ni  Vn. 
St.  :?!.')  (ISC.-));  Smith  v.  Now  Yori<  TViit.  U.  Co..  '21)  l»;irl).  V.Vl  flS^O).  iif- 
flniu'd  l)y  a  ilividt'ii  court.  21  X.  Y.  222  (1^02);  IiidiKiiaix.lis  Ac.  J{. 
Co.  V.  IJcavor.  II  liid.  VX\  ('IS7;?).  But  sec  Rii^sclj  v.  New  Ynrl<  ("ciil. 
K.   Co..  2.-)  \.  Y.  112   (18(52);  Kailmad  Co.  v.  Lo(>l<\vood.  17    Wall.  r)7 

(is7:{). 

--'  Cleveland  Ac.  11.  Co.  v.  Curran.  1!)  ()hii>  St.  1  (ISdlJ). 

^■'2;?  Wis.  ;{87  (18(W). 

-'M  Watts.  44;?  (18:U). 

•■i"'  Grand  'I'nmk  \\.  Co.  v.  Stovons.  O.')  V.  S.  0.").  0  ( Viit.  T..  .1.  207  (1877). 

^  On  the  face  of  the  ]iass  wci'o  those  words:  ••  Pass  Mr.  .Stevens  from 
I'ortland  to  Montreal."  and  it  \\  as  signed  hy  the  iiro',)e."  ollleer.  On  the 
back  was  the  following  printed  indorsement:  ■•  The  ixTson  aciieptiiig 


(II.    IX.] 


CONSIDEIJATION. 


277- 


Portliiiid  to  Montreal  the  train  was  thrown  from  the  track 
and  the  i)laintitT  was  injured.  'I'lie  Supreme  Court  of  tlu^ 
I'uited  States  lield  tliat  lie  was  not,  under  these  cireum- 
stanees,  a  gratuitous  passonjicn-,  Mr.  .Iustie(>  1?I!A1)I.kv  say- 
iiii:-.-  "  'i'he  traiis[)ortation  of  the  plaintiff  in  t lie  defendant's 
ears,  though  not  i)aid  for  by  him  in  money,  was  not  a  mat- 
ter of  eharity  nor  of  u'ratuity  in  any  si'use.  It  was  by  vir- 
tue of  an  agreement  in  which  the  mutual  interest  of  the 
parties  was  consulti'd.  It  was  part  of  the  consideration  for 
which  the  plaintiff  consented  to  take  the  journey  to  Mon- 
treal. His  expenses  in  makinii:  that  jouriu-y  were  to  ho 
paid  l»v  the  defendant,  and  of  these  the  expense  of  his 
transportation  was  u  part.  The  uivinu'  him  a  free  pass  did 
not  alter  the  nature  of  the  transaction.  The  pass  was  a 
mere  tick(;t  or  voucher,  to  l>e  shown  to  the  contluct(  -  of 
the  train,  as  evidenci'  of  his  I'iuht  to  he  transported  therein. 
It  was  not  eviilence  of  any  contract  by  which  the  plaintiff 
was  to  assume  all  the  I'lsk  ;  and  it  would  not  liiive  been 
valid  if  it  had  been.  Ir.  this  rcsjx'ct  it  was  a  stronjrer  case 
than  that  of  Lo.kwood.-'  There  the  pass  was  what  is 
called  a  '  drover's  j)ass,'  and  an  agreement  was  actually 
signed,  declaring  tha*  the  acceptance  of  the  pass  was  to  be 
considered  as  a  waivi'r  of  aii  ciaims  for  damages  or  injury 
received  on  the  train.  The  court  rightly  refused,  there- 
fore, in  the  present  case,  to  charge  that  the  l)laintiff  was 
traveling  upon  the  conditions  indorst'd  on  the  pass  ;  or  that,, 
if  he  traveled  on  that  pass,  the  defendant  was  friie  from 
liability.  And  the  court  was  e([ually  right  in  refusing  to 
charg(!  that  if  the  [)laintiff  was  a  free  or  gratuitous  passen- 
ger, the  defendiint   was  not   liable.     The  evidence  did  not 


II  n 
I'  I 


|:^-''v/i- 


k'  « 


I:  P 


this  free  lickct  in  coiisidci-ation  tlicrcof  ussimics  all  risk  of  all  aecirloiits, 
and  expressly  auit'cs  that,  the  cimiiKiny  shall  not  ho  liahle.  tinilor  any  cir- 
cninstanccs.  wlu'ihcr  of  Mc^ilij^cncc  hy  thciraf^cnts  or  otherwise,  for  any 
injury  to  the  person,  or  for  any  loss  or  injury  to  the  property  of  tli(>  pas- 
<enijei'  usinji  the  ticket.  If  presented  t)y  any  other  person  than  the  in- 
dividual named  therein,  the  eonduetor  will  take  iii)  this  ticket  and  ('(d- 
leet  fare."' 
^  Railrc.iid  Co.  v.  I.oekwood.  17  Wall.  :i.')7  (187:i)- 


]  h 


i7H 


TIIK  CONTRACTS  OK  CAUHIKIW. 


[cm.  IX. 


sustain  any  sudi  Iiypollicsis.  It  was  nn('(>nlra<li(lt'(l.  so  far 
as  it  referred  to  llie  ai'i-aiij^einenJ  l»y  vifliie  of  wliieli  (lie 
joiirnev  was  undertaken.  *  *  II  is  stron^i'ly  ur<;'ed,  how- 
over,  that  the  plaintiff,  l»v  aeeeptinj;  the  free  pass  indorsed 
as  it  was,  was  estopped  from  sjiowinji'  that  he  was  not  to 
tako  his  passairc  upon  the  terms  therein  expressed;  or  at 
least  that  his  aeeei)tanee  of  the  pass  should  l»«'  reirarded  a-' 
eonipetent  if  not  eoneiusive  evidence  that  si:.i,  ;i  p;iss  was 
in  tlie  eontemphilion  of  the  parties  when  the  arranjrt'nienl 
for  his  ooiiijr  to  Montreal  was  made,  liut  we  have  already 
shown  that  tho  earryin<r  of  the  plaintiff  fi'om  Portland  to 
Montreal  was  not  a  mere  iiraliiity.  To  call  it  sudi  would 
he  repujiiiant  to  tho  essential  <'haracter  of  the;  whole  ti'ans- 
action.  There  was  a  consideration  for  it,l)oth  jjfood  and 
vaiuahle.  It  neeessai'ily  follows,  thei'efoi'e.  that  it  was  a 
eai'ryinu"  for  hire.  IUhui;'  such,  it  was  not  competent  for 
the  defendant,  as  a  common  carriei",  to  slipidatc  for  the 
imnumity  expressed  on  the  hack  of  the  pass.  This  is  a 
sutiieient  answer  to  (hearirnment  pi'opounded.  The  defend- 
ant heinir,  hy  the  very  nature  of  the  tiansaction,  a  common 
carrier  for  hire,  can  not  set  up,  as  auainst  the  plaintit'f  who 
was  a  i)assenirei'  for  hire,  any  such  estoppel  oi"  aiii'cement  as 
that  which  is  insistecl  on." 

§  21rH. —  T/ic  Cast' of  (I  Fri'i'  /*(!,'<.'< — 77/^  ^[in'rican  Duc- 
trinc. — Accoi'dinu' to  the  .Vnu-rican  doctrine,  then,  a  condi- 
tion in  a  "stock  pass  "  declai'ini:"  a  common  carrier  exempt 
from  liahility  for  ne<iiiu'ence,  is  auainst  the  policy  of  the  law 
and  is  voiil.-"*  Hut  the  (juestion  of  consideration  is  not  m;i- 
tcrial,  and,  therefore,  it  follows  that  according:  to  the  weight 
of  authority  in  this  country,  a  ti'aveler  on  a  fi-ee  pass, 
thouuh  he  expressly  agree  that  the  carrier  slmll  not  he  lialiic 

'■«  Cleveland  i^c.  H.  Co.  v.  Ciirnm.  IDOliio  St.  1  (ISd!)):  (•iiiciiiiinti  i"tc.  It. 
Co.  v.  I'outiiis.  111.  i-l\  (lS(i!));  Knov.lton  v.  Erii'  1{.  Co.  Id.  -im  dso!)) : 
Peniisylviuilii  H.  (  o.  v.  llciidcrsoii.  .")1  I'a.  St.  :!]."»  (IS(),"i)  ;  rcmisylvania 
K.  ("o.  V.  Mi'tMo-kcy.  •-':!  I'a.  Kl.  .•.■-'<;  (I S.-)|);  (ioldcy  t.  I'fimsv  !\aiiia  W. 
Co.  -M  I'a.  St.  -IVl  (IS.YS; ;  Kiiiiii  v.  I'hilad.dpliia  iVc  K.  (  o..  1  Jlunst.  W.) 
(1SJ7):  liailroad  Coini)aiiy  v.  I.ocKwood,  17  Wall.  I{.")7  (187:5). 


til.  i.x.] 


rONSIDKHATION. 


27!» 


for  any  iiijurv  lu'  nmy  susttiin,  will  still  he  liiil)lo  fur  sncli 
an  injury  llir  result  of  the  nc^rliircnci'  of  his  scrvaiits  or 
agents.  This  has  hecn  t'X|)r('ssly  ilccideil  in  Alabama, '-' 
Iirfuoi.s,"''  Indiana,'"  Iowa,"''  Miiuicsota,'''''  and  IVnnsylvania."' 
In  iho  Minni'sota  case,  Juvohusv.  St.  /'(iiil  li'  ('hicnijo  Jidil- 
road  f'o»/y>*^/?i//,'''' tlu!  reasons  for  lliis  rule  art;  well  stated 
I»y  the  court.  " 'I'hei'e  are  (wo  distinct  considerations," 
says  Hi:i:i!Y,  .1.,  "  upon  which  the  striii<rent  rule  as  to  the 
duty  and  iiahility  of  carriers  of  passengers  rests.  One  is  a 
regard  for  the  safety  of  the  passenger  on  his  own  account, 
and  the  other  is  a  regard  for  his  safety  as  a  citizen  of  the 
State.  The  latter  is  a  ((Uisidei'ation  (d'  puhlie  policy  grow- 
ing out  of  the  interest  which  the  State  or  (Jovernnient,  as 
paiciiH  jHtli'iic,  has  in  protecting  the  lives  and  liud>s  of  its 
subjects.  So  far  as  thi^  considei'atiou  of  public  policy  is 
concerned,  it  can  not  be  over-ridden  by  any  stipulation  of 
the  pai'ties  to  the  contrac  of  passenger  carriage,  since  it  is 
paramount  from  its  vei-y  nature.  No  stipulation  of  the 
pai'lies  in  disregitrd  of  .,oi'  involving  its  saci'itiee  in  any 
<legree,  cjm  then  be  permitted  to  stand.  \N'hether  the  ease 
be  one  of  a  ])assenger  for  hii-c  ;  a  merely  gratuitous  passen- 
ger, or  of  a  passenger  upon  a  conditioned  free  pass,  as  in 
this  Instance,  the  intei'cst  of  the  Stat(!  in  the  safety  of  the 
citizen  is  obviously  the  same.  The  more  stringent  the  rule 
as  to  the  duty  and  liability  of  the  carrier,  and  the  moi'c 
rigidly  it  is  enforced,  the  gn-alei"  will  be  the  care  exercised, 
and  the  more  approxinuitely  perfect  the  safety  of  the  pass- 
i'uger.  Any  relaxati<in  of  the  rule  as  to  iluty  or  liability 
naturally,  and  it  may  be  said  inevitably,  tends  to  bring 
about  a  cori'cspontling  relaxation  of  care  and  diligence  upon 
the  part  <d'  the  carrier,     ^^'c  can  conceive  of  no  reason  why 


'•'  M<»l)ilc  i^c.  U.  ("().  V.  nnpkiiis.  II  Mil.  IS(;  (18118). 

»   Illinois  CViit.  J{.  (O.  v.  Kcid.  :!7  111.  -184  (1805). 

31  Ohio  Ac.  H.  Co.  V.  Si'lhy.  17  liid.  -171  (ls74). 

»-  Hose  V.  !)('<  MoiiK-s  Valley  K.  Co..  li!)  Iowm.  'IMS  (1^74). 

«=.r:icolmsv.  SI.  J'Miil  Otc.  K.  Co.. 'JO  Mimi.  t'^).  1  Ce-ut.  L.  .1.  375  (1S7:{). 

•■"  l*»'iinsylvaui;i  Ji.  Co.  v.  Uiitlcr.  .".7  l*a.  St.  ;5;i.') 

■'''  Supra. 


f 


!<).>S 


,  1 

^ 

l! 

m 

^^ 

;■ 

■^1  !- 

■  1 

•       1 

hL^ 

2«{) 


TIIK  CONTUACrs  OK  CAItlMKKS. 


[ril.    IX. 


thi'HO  j)r()|)(>sili()iis  arc  in»t  (M|ually  applicaltlc  (<>  passriijicrs 
of  citlicr  of  tlic  kinds  alxivc  iiicntioiicd.  It  is  sjiid,  liow- 
t'vcr,  lliat  it  is  iimcasuiialik'  to  .siippnsc  that  tlif  iiiaiiiijicrs  of 
a  I'ailroad  train  will  Ics.scn  (lu>ir  vi<:ilanc('  and  caiT  for  tli(» 
safety  of  tlic  train  and  its  passcnLTcrs,  hccausc  there  niav 
he  a  few  on  lioard  for  whom  thev  are  not  responsihh'.  In 
the  tir>t  plaee,  if  this  consideration  were  aMowcil  to  |trevail, 
it  would  prove  too  much  :  for  it  <'(tuld  i»c  urj^cd  witli  ci|nai 
force  and  [)ropi'iety  in  the  case  of  a  merely  ^.natuitous  pass- 
en<rerasin  a  case  like  this  at  l>ar.  Vet,  as  we  h  •escen.  no 
.such  consideration  is   pci'niittc<|   to  I'clicvc  the  'er   fi-oni 

the  same  deiiive  of  lialiilitv  for  a  L'latnitous  ,  ,.  .^cn<;•c^  as 
for  a  i)ass<'nii-cr  for  Inn'.  Airain,  suppose  (what  i>  not  al  all 
impossible  or  ii>i[)rol)ai>Ic,  as.  for  instance,  in  c;ise  of  a  free 
excursion,)  that  most  or  all  of  the  passenjrers  upon  a  tiain 
were  iri'Mtiiiious,  or  ridinir  upon  conditioned  free  passes,  tjic 
consideration  ur;j:ed  would  he  no  answci' to  a  claim  that  the 
carrier  shoidd  he  lesponsihlc.  A  jrcneral  I'ule  can  hardly 
l)c  hascd  upon  such  calculations  of  chances.  .Moreover, 
while  it  might  not  ordinarily  occur  that  the  pi'csence  of  a 
free  passenger  upon  a  train,  f(ti'  injui-y  to  whom  the  can-icr 
would  not  he  liahle,  would  tend  to  lessen  the  c;il'rier's  sense 
of  responsihijity  and  his  vigilance,  it  still  rem.ains  tiiic  that 
the  greater  the  >cnse  of  respoiisihility  the  greater  the  caic  ; 
and  that  (ini/  relaxation  of  rcsponsihUity  is  dangerous.  He- 
sides  these  consideiations.  it  is  to  lie  icmemhered  that  the 
c.'ire  and  vigilance  whicli  a  carrier  cxercist's  do  not  depend 
alone  upon  a  mere  sense  of  responsihilty,  or  upon  i\w,  exist- 
ence of  an  ah>tract  rule  of  imposing  sti'ingent  oldigalions 
upon  him.  It  is  t!ie  enforcement  of  the  rule  and  of  tin; 
liahilily  imposed  thereby — the  mulcting  of  the  carrier  for 
his  negligence — which  brings  home  to  him  in  the  most  prac- 
tical, forcible,  and  effectual  way,  the  necessity  for  strictly 
fulfilling  his  ol)ligati()ns.  It  may  bo  that  on  a  given  occa- 
sion, the  gratuitous  passenger  or  the  passenger  upon  a  free 
puss  is  the  oidy  jjcrson  injured,  as  foi-  aught  that  appears 
was  the  fact  in  this  instance,  or  the  only  party  who  will  pio- 


M.   IX.] 


rONSIDKItATION. 


2M1 


(■(•('(I  ii^riiiiisl  \\w.  ciirricr — llic  only  ptrxm  ulio  will  |irii(li- 
ciilly  cnrorct'  upon  the  ••ari'icr  llir  iinpoilaiHf  of  :i  I'nillirnl 
»liscliiir;.''c  of  his  dnty.  TIicsc  con  ii(lcr;ili(iiis,  as  it  sccinHto 
IIS.  oiiirlil  1<>  !»<'  (IcM'isivc  upon  lli''  point  tiitil  sound  piiMic; 
policy  i'c«piii'cs  (hat  the  rule  as  to  tlic  liai»ility  of  the  caiiicr 
for  flic  safety  of  the  p;issciiircr  should  not  he  relaxed,  though 
the  pa<s('n<^er  he  i^ratiiilous,  or  as  in  this  case,  ridin;;  upon 
a  conditioned  free  pass."  Tlu'  (|ii('sti()n  of  (he  power  of  a 
coniinoii  carrier  to  alisolve  hiiiisclf  from  the  conse([uciices 
of  lii-^  ncirli.'i'encc  towards  a  i  ree  passeiii;-ei',  has  not  as  \i'i 
liccn  <lirec(ly  prescii(e(l  (o  (lie  Supreme  ( 'our(  of  (he  Uni(cd 
Sta(es.  Iviilrniiil  (%inijtini>/  r.  /jitf/cirafx/;''''  was  a  case  of  a 
stock  pass,  and  in  (ri'dwl  Trunk  Ittiihrtn/  (Umiinniif  r. 
S/cri'iis,'^'  iihhoiiL^h  (lie  (icke(  pur|)orted  to  he  a  *'  frci^ 
ticket  "  a  consideration  Wiis  i^hown.  Hut  in  the  latter  case, 
Mr.  .Iiistici-  HijADi.KY  said  ;  "We  do  not  mean  (o  iiiii»ly,  how- 
ever, (lia(  we  should  have  coiiK?  (o  a  <liffercn(  conclusion, 
had  the  plaintiff  hetm  a  free  passenjxcr  instiad  of  a  passeii- 
;j:er  for  hire.  Wo  an*  awaro  that  rcspectahle  (rihunals  have 
asser(ed  (he  rii;lit  to  sti[)iilate  for  exemption  in  such  a  case  ; 
audit  is  often  asked  with  appari'iit  contideiice  ;  •May  not 
men  make  their  own  coii(rac(s,  or  in  odier  woi'ds,  may  not 
a  man  .lo  what  Ik;  will  with  his  own?'  The  (|uestioii  at  first 
siirht  seems  a  simple  one.  Hut  (here  is  a  (|uestioii  lyiiiij; 
hehind  (hat:  'Can  a  man  call  (hat  absolutely  his  own, 
which  he  holds  as  a  great  puhlie  trust,  by  the  luiblic  <;raiit 
and  for  the  public  use  as  well  as  his  own  profit  ?  '  'I'ho 
business  of  the  coiiimoii  carrier,  in  this  country  at  least,  is 
emphadcally  a  bniiich  of  the  |)ublie  8(>rvice  ;  and  the  coiidi- 
fions  on  which  that  public  service  shall  l)e  performed  i)y 
private  enterprise  are  not  yet  entirely  settled."  It  may  bo 
>aid,  however,  that  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Justice  Huadlkv, 
who  delivorod  the  judirmont  of  the  court  in  the  Lovkirood 
and  StcccDs'  cases,  leave  little  room  for  conjectui'c  as  to  what 
(he  decision  of  that  tribunal  would  be  in  a  case  of  this  kind. 

••"i  17  Wall.  357  (187:5). 

•'■  iir.  I',  y.  «.J5.  (J  CViil.  L.  J.  207  (1870). 


S   • 


'is      ''- 


2^3 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  CARUIEU8. 


[CII. 


No  court  in  the  hind  exhibits  a  more  dotcnnincd  ondoavor  to 
protect  the  puljlic  in  their  dealings  with  eo.nnion  carriers 
than  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.'"^ 

§  21S>.  T/k'  Doctrine  in  Louisiana  and  Xt'w  Jevxei/. — In 
New  Jersey,  in  a  case  whii-h  was  considered  tirst  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  and  next  by  tiie  Court  of  Appeals,  it  was  hehl 
without  dissent  in  either  court  that  a  contract  that  in  con- 
sideration of  a  free  passage  a  passenger  will  assume  the 
risk  of  injuries  to  his  person  from  the  negligence  of  the 
servants  of  a  railroad  conJi)auy,  is  valid  in  law/'-'  Jn  Ilig- 
ginx  V.  ycir  Orleans  Railroad  Conijtani/,*"  a  news-vendor 
had  the  privilege  from  the  com})any  of  si'lling  books  and 
l)a|!ers  on  its  trains  by  his  agents,  on  conditio!!  thai  >.uch 
agents  as  went  on  the  trains  should  sign  a  contr.M't  ;'xenip(- 
ing  the  company  from  all  liability  for  injuries  which  they 
might  receive.  There  was  no  consideration  paid  for  the 
l)rivilege  ;  but  his  agents  rendered  small  services  to  passen- 
gers. The  plaintiff,  an  ager.t  who  had  signed  the  agree- 
ment, was  injured  while  riding  on  a  train  under  this  con- 
tract. It  was  held  that  the  injury  not  being  occasioned  by 
the  "  fraudulcnl ,  wilful  or  reckless  conduct''  of  the  tle- 
fi'ndant,  h(>  could  not  recover. 

§  220.  VV/r-  Doctrine  in  X<ir  York.—Thv  lirst  case 
ill  New  York,  Welles  r.  \eir  York  (.'cnlral  Railroad  Coni- 
pant/,*^  arose  in  ]sr)(S.  The  plaintiff  I'eeeivcd  a  free  ticket 
from  the  defendants  permitting  him  to  ride  on  their  cars 
at  his  f)wn  pleasure.  On  the  back  of  tin-  tick«'l  was  the 
following  imIorscMnent  :  " 'I'he  person  accepting  this  free 
ticket  assumes  all  risk  of  accidents  and  «'xpressly  agrees 
that  the  company  shall  not  be  liable  under  any  <ircum- 
.stanccs,  whether  of  negligence  by  theii'  agents  or  olhei'wise, 
foi'  any  injury  to  the  person  or   for   any  loss  or  injury  (o 


'^  ^00  (I lift',  ('ill I.  II  if  2!). 

«'  Kinney  v.  (Vntnil  It.  Co.  .il  N.  J.,  (I.iivv)  J07  i\sV,S)  ;  M  N.  .1.  (I,;iw) 

5]:?  (isniij. 

^"•28  I.ii.  Ann.  r.tlt  (IS70). 
•":>U  J?:irl..  04 1. 


*    ' 


IX- 


CU.   IX.] 


CONSIDKRATION. 


283 


the  property  of  the  passenger  using  this  ticket."  No  con- 
sideration for  tlie  carriage  was  shown.  By  ii  collision 
between  the  passenger  train  in  which  he  was  riding  and  a 
freight  train  negligently  left  standing  on  the  track,  the 
holder  of  the  ticket  was  injured.  A  verdict  for  IT.'jO  hav- 
ing heen  found  in  his  favor  tlu^  Ciisc  was  taken  to  the 
Supreme  (\)urt .  There  the  judgment  was  reversed,  that 
court  holding  that  the  contract  was  not  unlawful.  Smith 
J.  said:  "In  the  conclusion  of  the  judge  of  the  circuit, 
that  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  recover  in  this  action,  1  tind 
myself  unable  to  concur.  The  plaintiff  received  a  free 
ticket  from  the  defendants,  entitling  or  permitting  him  to 
ride  in  their  cars  at  his  own  pleasure,  with  an  indorsement 
on  his  ticket  by  which  '  he  expressly  agreed  that  the  com- 
pany should  not  l)e  liable  under  any  circumstances,  whether 
of  negligence  by  their  agents  or  otherwise,  for  any  injury 
to  his  pei'son  oi"  for  any  loss  or  injury  to  his  property.' 
These  were  the  terms  and  the  conditions  on  which  the  de- 
fendants gave  and  the  plaintiff  received  his  ticket.  It 
implies  in  effect,  an  agrecnu'nt  on  '  c  part  of  the  i)laintiff 
to  take  the  risk  of  all  the  casualties  attending  railroad 
travel,  so  far  as  they  arost-  or  might  arise  or  result  from 
n<'giig'iiice  on  the  part  of  the  oflicers  and  agents  of  the  de- 
fendants, 'i'he  defendants  are  a  corporation,  engaged  in 
carrying  persons  and  property  as  common  carriers.  They 
are  necessarily  ol)lig(>d  to  carry  on  their  business  through 
the  instrumentality  of  numerous  otHcers  and  other  agents. 
From  tile  character  of  the  business,  the  great  liability  to 
accidents  or  injuiies  to  persoi  and  property  I'esulting  more 
or  less  in  most  cases  from  sciiie  degi-ec  of  neglect  or  want 
()■  care  on  the  pai'l  of  some  of  their  numerous  ein[)loyees, 
and  the  sei'ions  character  of  such  injui'ies,  the  company 
might  well  dcsiiw'  to  resti'ict  their  liability  to  diimages  from 
sucli  ci'sualtics  l(;  (h(>  nari'owest  possible  limit.  In  resp(>ct 
to  persons  carried  for  hire,  they  could  obviously  do  nothing 
to  restrict  their  liability  or  that  should  excuse  them  from 
the  exeicisc  of  the   utmost   diliirenee  and  care.     But  they 


* 


n 


l%r^ 


'J  I 


pp 


■  ''5 


*    * 


: ;.''  ! 


'7 

i 


v\ 


!>:v 


284 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CARRIERS. 


[CH.    IX. 


Sire  not  obliged  to  earrv  any  person  without  conipeiisa- 
tion,  at  their  own  risk.  They  must  liave  the  clear  rijriit 
to  contract  with  any  such  person  that  lie  must  tak(^  his 
own  risk.  He  would  ride  in  tlie  same  cars  with  other 
passengers,  and  would  he  lial)le  to  the  same  and  no 
greater  accidents,  hut  as  he  would  pay  nolliing  for  his  fan; 
he  might  well  agree  to  take  his  own  risk.  lie  knew  that 
the  coujpany  was  liaMc  to  suffer  gre:it  lo  s  and  damage 
from  the  ne<fli<jfence  of  its  airents,  and  that  i>.  would  natur- 
ally  seek  to  avoid  or  had  a  great  interest  in  preventing 
such  loss  l)y  every  reasonal)U'  precaution.  liut  with  the 
best  of  care  and  the  utmost  caution,  some  accidents,  he 
knew,  would  unavoidaI)ly  occur  from  the  unforsccn  negli- 
gence, carelessness  or  want  of  skill  of  its  employees. 
Against  all  such  acciilents,  <■  under  any  eircumstan<cs, 
whether  of  negligence  by  the  agents  of  the  defcmlants  or 
(»therwise,  the  i)laintiff  expressly  agreed  to  assume  and  take 
his  own  risk."  'i'his  is  the  bargain.  It  is  not  unlawful. 
It  is  distinctly  and  fairly  made  and  clearly  understood.  I 
can  not  see  why  it  is  not  fully  Itinding,  to  the  extent  of  ex- 
empting the  defendants  from  all  loss  or  liability  to  loss  or 
damage  from  injuries  resulting  from  mere  negligence.  I 
do  not  sec  any  ground  to  stop  short  of  liiis  exemption  -"lom 
loss  or  liability  on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  within  <li(> 
entiri'  lange  or  seope  of  negligence  not  arising  from  bad 
faith  »)r  fraud.  I  see  nogi'tund  t<»  measure  the  degrees  of 
negligence.  The  contracl  makes  no  degrees.  It  is  sweep- 
ing and  includes  all  negligence.  It  makes  no  exception  of 
gross  negligence.  The  plaintiff  and  defendants  both  knew 
that  there  was  a  liability  t(t  accidents  fi-om  gross  as  well  as 
from  slight  negligence.  They  use  the  W(»rd  negligence  in 
its  general  legal  sense,  to  embrace  all  accidents  or  injuries 
resulting  from  cai-clessness  or  non-feasance  of  the  defend- 
ants' agi'iits.  Nothing  else,  it  seems  to  me,  will  satisfy  llie 
fair  meaning  —  the  plain  import — of  the  contract.  The 
plaintiff's  injury  resulted  from  a  collision  l)et ween  the  cars 
of  till'  train  in  which  he  was  riding  as  passenger,  and  some 


I.X, 


en.  IX.] 


CONSIDKUATION. 


285 


oars  staiuliuir  on  tlio  trac^k.  It  was  of  courso  a  case  of 
lU'irligoncc  to  have  sucli  a  collision  occur ;  but  collisions  do 
happen  (piite  fre(piently,  and  that  was  well  known  to  the 
plaintiff  and  to  all  the  public.  This  cause  of  injury  was 
most  oi)vi()Usly  within  the  contemplation  of  the  i)arties,  for 
it  is  the  most  fruitful  cause  of  aiT'idents  and  loss  and  injur- 
ies in  railroad  travelin<x.  All  collisions  of  trains  must  be 
the  result  of  neixliirence  in  some  de;4'.',e,  perhaps  in  the 
scale  or  deiiree  of  j^i-oss  neglii>(Mic(!.  But  with  this  ticket 
as  his  title  and  authority  to  ride  in  the  defendants'  cars, 
and  as  the  contract  on  which  the  defendants  aureed  to  carry 
him,  1  think  the  defendants  are  n'-t  liable  foi-  any  injuries 
except  such  as  wen;  the  result  of  fraudulent,  wilful  or 
reckless  misconduct  on  the  [)art  of  the  defendants'  otiicers 
or  ajrents.  1  put  the  exem[)ti()n  from  liability  for  injuries 
resultinix  from  nejjliirence  entirely  upon  the  terms  of  the  ex- 
press ajxrcement  between  the  parties.  If  the  j)laintiff  had 
l)een  ridin<i:  at  the  time,  gratuitously  upon  siniply  a  free 
ticket  or  upon  the  invitation  of  the  defendans  as  matter  of 
favor,  com'tesy  or  otherwise,  the  defendanis  would  be 
liable."  Johnson,  J.,  concurred  in  this  opinion.  Stkon<j, 
J.,  dissented.  The  case  then  went  to  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
where  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  afKrmed.''''^ 
(ioiLi),  J.,  who  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  coui't, 
took  the  same  grounds  as  were  relied  on  in  the  court  below, 
and  his  conclusions  were  adopted  by  Denio,  Daviks, 
Allkn  and  SMiTir,  .1.  J.  Sklukn,  C  J.,  was  absent. 
SiTiiKKLANi),  J.,  dissented  in  an  elaborate  oi)iniou  in 
which  WifUiiiT  J.,  concurred.  The  student  is  referred  to  a 
previous  chapter  where  a  lengthy  extract  from  this  opinion 
will  be  found;*'  therefore  only  that  jjortion  of  it  not  given 
before  need  be  set  out  here.  "  I  think  too,"  he  said  in  con- 
clusion "it  may  b(^  said  that  to  enfonte  the  contract  in  ques- 
tion would  interfere  with  the  jiolicy  of  the  very  laws  from 
which  the  defendants  derive  their  existence  and  their  powers. 

«2t  N.  Y..  ISl   (1SI!-J). 
*'.l«<(',  Cap.  III.  §  7:>. 


1 


'! 


'ti 


■^1 


28fi 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAUHIERS. 


[CII.   IX. 


They  arc  a  private  corporation,  yet  in  theory  at  least,  they 
were  ineorporated  from  pul)1ic  considerations  and  for  the 
l)ul)lic  good.  Hence  tlie  powers  given  to  them  whicli  inter- 
fere so  materiallv  with  iirivatc  riirhts.  Tliev  are  constituted 
carriers  of  })ersons  and  property,  and  are  expressly  made 
liahle  for  any  ilamaires  occasioned  by  theii'  neglect  of  duty. 
As  carriers  of  passengers  as  well  as  of  property,  they  may 
he  considered  as  acting  in  a  public  cajjacity,  and  as  a  kind 
of  pul)lic  orticers.  Their  admitted  ol»ligation  to  carry  all 
passengers  who  pivsent  themselves  and  are  to  pay  the  usual 
fare,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  tluy  are  considered  as  act- 
ing in  a  public  capacity  in  carrying  passengers.  The  care 
and  diligence  then,  expressly  imposed  upon  them  as  car- 
riers of  passengers  bv  the  very  law  detlning  their  powers 
and  duties  as  a  corporation,  is  imposed  upon  them  as  a  pul)- 
li<'  duty.  Can  it  be  said  that  any  contract  tending  to  pre- 
vent, or  relax  or  modify  the  performance  of  a  })ublic  <luty 
imposed  by  law,  is  valid?  Is  not  such  a  contract  void,  as 
against  the  policy  of  the  law  imposing  the  duty?  More- 
over, I  think  it  can  properly  be  said  that  the  defendants  had 
no  power  to  enter  into  the  contract  or  arrangement  which 
was  made  with  the  plaintiff.  And  on  this  <|ucslion  of  ])ower, 
all  till'  considerations  of  public  policy  before  adverted  to  are 
proper  and  apply.  It  was  a  speculative  contract  outside  of 
their  charter.  It  can  not  properly  be  said  that  they  under- 
took to  carry  the  plaintiff  free  or  without  consideration. 
Thev  undertook  to  carrv  him  in  consideration  of  his  ajrrce- 
ing  not  to  hold  ti\em  resjjonsible  for  any  injury,  even  foi' 
an  injury  resulting  from  thcii*  neglect  of  a  legal  jjublic  duty. 
Can  it  be  sui)))osed  that  the  legislature  ever  intended  to 
give  the  defendants  the  implied  right  or  jiower  to  enter  into 
any  such  <'ontra<'t  or  arrangenuMit  with  their  passengers? 
I  think  not.  All  iUo  considerations  of  pul)lic  policy  before 
adverted  to  forbid  the  idea.  TIk^  duty  of  due  care  and  dil- 
ligeiice  is  cast  upon  the  defendants  by  the  law  creating  them 
a  corporation,  and  they  camiot  cast  it  off  by  contract.  It 
has  been  said  that  the  cases  holding  that  a  servant  can  not 


T-'S^Nv" 


IX. 


rii.  IX.  I 


CONSIDKKATFON. 


287 


i-ccovcr  of  his  inastcr  for  tlic  negligence  of  his  fellow  serv- 
ant in  the  siune  business  or  employment,  show  that  the  con- 
traet  in  (|Uestion  is  valid.  It  is  said,  I  believe,  in  some  of 
the  eases,  that  these  decisions  rest  partly  upon  the  ground 
that  the  sei'vant  entering  into  the  employment  must  be  sup- 
posed to  contract  to  tiike  ujx)!!  himself  the  risks  of  the 
negligence  of  his  fellow  servants.  'Hut  there  really  is  not 
in  such  cases  any  contract,  express  or  imi)licd.  The  gen- 
eral rule  of  law  is  that  the  master  is  responsible  for  the 
negligence  of  the  servant.  The  real  ground  of  the  decis- 
ions last  refernid  to,  1  take  to  be  th'.t  the  [)olicy  of  the  rule 
itself  does  not  i'e(|uire  its  ai)plication  in  such  cases.  'I'he 
reason  of  the  ruU^  ceasing  in  such  cases,  the  rule  is  not  aj)- 
plied.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  the  [xtlicy  of  the  rule 
itself  is  promoted  by  not  ajjplying  it  in  such  cases  ;  for  it  is 
evident  that  by  not  apj)lyingit.  it  is  made  the  interest  of 
servants  to  be  watchfid  of  eacli  other,  and  to  inform  the 
master  of  each  other's  delin<piencies." 

In  Smith  /*.  Xmr  York  Cm/ nil  llntb'oad  Com  pant/,**  the 
plaintiff's  intestate  was  injured  while  traveling  on  a  drover's 
or  stock  pass,  which  contained  t!.  condition:  "Audit  is 
further  igreed  l)etween  the  parties  hereto  that  the  parties 
I'iding  free,  t(/  take;  charge  of  the  stock,  do  so  wt  their  own 
risk  of  p(!rs<)nal  \\\]\ivy  fmiti  wlniffvi'v  anisf',^''  'I'he  injury 
was  caused  on  account  of  an  old  emigrant  car,  unsafe  by 
reason  of  having  a  Hat  wheel,  being  attached  to  the  train. 
The  |)laiiitiff  had  a  verdict  anil  judgment  for  $oO()0,  which 
on  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  was  atHrmed.  The  decis- 
ion in  Wt'llis  r.  .Vnr  Vork  (U-tifval  Rttilroail  (Jompaiii/,*'' 
was  approved.  But  tlu'  court  held  that  the  present  case  dif- 
fered from  that  in  two  particulars.  In  the  first  place,  the 
contract  in  Wcl/cs'  case  expressly  excepted  negligence  while 
in  this  it  did  not.  \or  would  the  words  "  from  whatever 
cause  ■'  be  const nu;d  to  include  negligence.  Secondly,  the 
plaintiff  in  this  <'ase  was  not  a  strictly  gratuitous  jjassenger 

«-j:i  ISarl).  i:{-J  (is:.:.). 
^  20  IJuiij.  (Jil  (1«:)>\ 


If ; 


:.M 


.     Wf3 


■,.a;i 


Pi 


:; 


IPi 


;   < 


ill 


288 


THE  COXTItACTS  OF  CAlUilEKS. 


[(•II.    I\. 


MS  Welles  was.  'I'he  priee  wliidi  he  liad  paid  fd.  the  li-ans- 
IJortation  of  his  catlle  aiitl  the  care  which  he  eoiitraeted  to 
lake  of  them  duriiii::  th(>  joiiniev  eonslituted  a  sutliriciil  cdii- 
^sideratioii  for  his  own  passa^^c.  'I'here  was  no  dissent  on 
these  [X/iiits  hy  any  ineniher  of  the  court.  The  case  wa^ 
then  taken  to  the  Court  of  Api)eals  where  the  judunieni 
l)i'low  was  aflirnied  \\\  <\  divideil  «  '>urt  —  five  judu'es  auainst 
three. ^'^  A\  KKiirr.  »!.,  held  that  the  netrliixen'"  was  tiiat  of 
the  corporation  itself  in  furnishing- an  unsafe  car  :  tlial  the 
words  in  the  pass  "from  whatever  lausi' ""  did  not  include 
ne;ili<renee  ;  that  the  plaintiff  was  not  a  frratuitous  j)assen- 
|Lr«'r  and,  therefore,  the  contract  was  clearly  void.  He  also 
e.\])i'csse(i  the  opini'.n  that  a  contract  which  "would  obviously 
enable  the  carrier  to  avoid  the  duties  which  the  law  enjoins 
as  re<;ard  to  the  safely  of  men,  encouiMiic  nciiliiicnce  and 
fraud,  and  take  away  the  motive  of  self-interest  on  the  part 
of  such  cari'ii'r  which  is  jn'rhaps  the  only  one  ad«'i|uate  lo 
secure  the  hijihest  deijree  of  caution  and  viui'iance,"  was  con- 
trary to  public  i)oli<-v  even  wln^re  no  fare  was  paid.'"     Smith, 

.•<«24\.  Y.  1222  (ISd-J). 

^'  Wrifjlit..!. :  "In  iliis  cusc 'NViinl  [tlic  plaintiff's  int<\«tato]  was  no:  a  j^ra- 
tnil<ins])ass('nij('r.  lie  had  conii^'n-ialfl  llic  carriers  nut  only  fortlir  lians- 
])(>rlati<>n  of  liis  stoci\.  luil  fur  ilic  (arriairc  of  himself  to  lalie  cliai-jie  of  ii. 
lie  is  to  ]>('  rcfranled  in  tin;  same  li,u;ht  as  a  ])assr'njrcr  w  hi)  has  paiil  a 
compensation  for  Ix-ini;  earrietl.  AVhatever  may  he  saiil.  therefore,  in 
resiieet  to  a  i)erson  ridin;^  free  in  pnrsuanee  of  an  n<;Teement  to  a>sMnie 
all  risks,  the  direct  (|Mesiioii  here  i-.  whether  it  is  aj^ainst  the  poliev  of 
our  laws  for  a  railroad  company  earryinija  i)assen;ier  for  a  com]ieii~atiun 
to  euntraef  with  sneli  pa-isi'ni^er  for  exemption  from  lialiilily  for  its  ne^- 
liirence.  'I'liat  it  i<  I  can  not  entenain  a  douht.  If.  !h(  n,  tlie  a<::i'i'emeni 
in  thi-i  ease  is  to  he  eonstrned  as  releasin<r  tlie  defendants  fiom  all  lia- 

hility  for  personal  injury  to  Ward  from  their  own  culpahle  ne^lijjen iml 

miseonihiet.  and  ahsolvinij  them  fiom  all  respon-iliiliiy  for  his  >afe  car- 
ria'^e.  it  is  void.  Hiil  wa-;  that  the  tenor  ami  effeei  of  tiie  au:reemenl  ? 
The  eontract  in  which  ilie  stipnlation  i<  found.  I'elated  to  ijie  transjiorta- 
tioii  of  his  ho^-s.  and  that  contract  |>rovided  thai  the  owner  >honld 
assume  certain  ri-ks  in  re-peet  theieto,  ami  eiihei-  aceoinpany  the  ti'ain 
liimsolf  to  take  care  of  thi'in  oi'  fiirni-h  -Hher  jieisons  to  (lischar;::e  that 
duly.  With  re<pei't  to  the  itroperly.  th»  eom|)any  as'^nmed  to  safely 
transport  it  and  take  upon  themselves  all  ri~k-  of  tran-|)oriaiinii  except 
those   si)eeitied.     'i'hey  wei'e  lo  fmiii<h  the  means  of    tran-porlalioii  — 


•-^JWifc..- 


^ 


CII.   IX.] 


CONSIDKHATIOX. 


281> 


,1.,  was  for  artinninj;  tlio  judunicnl  on  the  first  irrouiul  stntod 
by  WiudiiT,  .1.  Dkmo  mikI  Davis,  ,1,1.,  were  of  opinion 
that  a  contract  !)V  wliich  a  railroad  corporation  exempted 
itself  from  liability  for  the  uejrliijfence  of  its  ajjents  in  re- 
spect to  a  i)urely  jiratuitous  passcnirer  was  not  forl)iddcn 
by  public  policy,  but  it  was  different  with  lej^ard  to  a  paying 

provide  tlif  rojul,  attciuliints.  snj)<ivisi()ii  aiiil  motive  jtower,  uik!  secure 
siilliclenl  cars,   except   in  tlie  sin;;le  respect   to  tiie  floors,  frames  ami 
doors  of  Hiieh  (sars.     As  to  tlicse  tliiii<i;s  there  was  no  attempt  to  limit 
their  common  law  liahility  as  carriers  of  propeity.  and  for  loss  or  dam- 
a;;e  occnrrinjj  to  tlie  owner  durinj;  snch  transportation  from  canses  other 
tlian  those,  the  risks  of  whieli  he  had  assumed,  the  liability  as  common 
carriers  continued.    Tiiey  weie  responsihle  for  any  loss  to  th(^  owner  re- 
Mdlin.<r  from  ne;;lect  to  provide  eitiier  a  sutlicient  roadway  or  secure  and 
road-worthy  vehicles  for  the  transportation,  except  as  respected  their 
lloors.  frames  and  doors.    Tliey  were  liable  for  any  def!;ree  of  iiejjliger.ee 
of  themselves  or  their  servants  in  the  transit,  except  as  to  those  thin;;s 
which  tlie  owner  undertook  to  relieve  them  from,  and  take  uj)on  himself 
the  risk.    'I'his  is  ihe  nature  and  effect  of  the  contract  as  to  the  carria<;'e 
of  the  property.     IJiil  in  it  is  emliodied  the  stipulation  tliat  persons  ac- 
comiianyin!;'  tlii'  train  to  take  ehar;;'e  of  the  stock  do  so  at  their  own  risk 
of  personal  injury  from  wliaiever  causes.     It  was  a  convenience  to  both 
parties  and  a  part  of  llie  contract   that   a  person     liould  ride  alon;^:  to 
lake  care  of  the  sloe'..     Now  we  are  asked  to  jiresunu'.  wliifst  the  aj^ree- 
inenl  Ixiuud  the  carri  'is  to  safely  transport  the   property,  and  the   law 
held  tliem  respousibi    as  insurers  exee|)t  so  far  as  they  had  succeeded  by 
aLTreeuieut  lO  liinil  si   -h  lialiility.  that  the  i)ailies  intended  that  the  jK-r- 
sons  in  eliai'i.'c  of  lb.-  property  should  assume  all  risks  of  personal  in- 
jury, wbelbci  resultinj;  from  the  cul|ialde  ne.i;lijrence  and  misconduct  of 
the  (-arriers  '.r  otberuise;  and  that    it    was  intended   that   the  carriers 
should  l)c  held  for  loss  occurriui;"  from  their  nej^lij^ence  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  the  properly,  but  ahsolved^roin  all  liability  for  iujir.ies  caused 
by  such  ne;jliijeuee,  however  jjross  or  culpable,  to  the  persons  in  charfje 
of  it.     This  could  not  have  been  the  iiileulion.  iioi-  will  the  law  [m'sume 
that  it  was.  so  lonjj  as  there  were  other  risks  to  which  the  sti])ulation 
mi<;ht  naturally  and  properly  a])ply,  and  more  consistently  with  honesty 
and  fair  dealing.     It  wiU  not  be  presunu-d  that  >Vard  intended  to  hold 
the  carriers  for  loss  oecasiiuied  by  tlieir  omission  of  care  in  the  transpor 
talion  of  Ills  jiroperly.  but  to  excuse  them  from  any  liability  for  injury 
to  himself  whilst  takinij  i-are  of  it,  lhou<jh  havinjj  no  control  or  manajje- 
inent  whatever  of  the  railroad;  nor  that  the  carriers,  after  becoming;  a 
I'.irty  to  a  contrai't  for  the  carriajje  of  live  stock,  a  par^  of  which  con- 
tract was  that  a  person  should   ride  on   the  train   to  lake  care  of  snch 
stock,  intended  that  the  person  should  take  on  himself  the  risk  of   per- 
Konal  injury,  even  though  they  should  omit  tlic  ordinary  precaiUion.s 
I 'J 


m 


s 

■  5 


If- 


& 


, 


',.4 


.J  -1 


it 


."^«8nC, 


^tti 


2i)() 


TIIK  CONTUACTH  OF  CAIMMKHH. 


[CH.  IX. 


pass('ii,i>:('r,  and  a  person  f ra\(>IiiiiLr  iiiidcr  the  «'ir('uiuslaiic('H 
proved  ill  thiscax-  (lieylield  was  no'  a  liraliiilous  passeiiiicr. 
SlTIIKI.'LAM*,  .1.,  <"»iiciiiTe(l  ill  alHriiiiiiu:  the  jiidji'ineiit  onllie 
•grounds  stated  l»y  liiiii  in  the  Wr/hs  case,  viz.,  tliat  the  ((Mi- 
truct  for  exi'inption  for  iie«f|i,ireiiee  was  void,  irrespective  of 
(lie  <|iieslioii  whellier  the  traiisjiortatioii  wa>  i^rat nitons  or 
for  hi"e.  Ski,I)Kn,  ('.  .1.,  Ai.M'.x  and  (ioiM),  .1.).,  dis- 
sented. 

/V/7.v'//.s'  '•.  Xf'ir  Yurk  Ci'iih-dl  U((ilr(>(iil  f 'o////w;*y,  decided 
hy  the  Court  of  Ai)peals  in  1S(!2,"'  wns  the  east'  of  an  ali- 
soliite  free  i)ass  jxiven  to  the  phiiiitiff's  intestate  Ity  a  direc- 
tor of  tlie  company  and  cnlitliiijjf  Iiiiii  to  ri(h'  fr<'<i  on  the 
i-ars  of  the  New  York  ("eiitral  Kaih'oad  Coini)aiiy  from 
Rochester  to  Alltany,  (hirin<«-  tiie  year  l.S.'iS.  On  the  tick<'t. 
was  tliis  notice:  "The  person  iicceplinjr  this  fre*'  ticket  as- 
sumes idl  risk  of  accidents,  and  expressly  ajirees  tliat  lh(^ 
company  shall  not  l)e  liahh',  niuU'r  any  circumstances, 
whether  of  nepliireiice  of  their  audits  or  otlierwise,  for  any 
injury  to  the  jx'rson  or  for  any  h)ss  or  injury  to  the  i)rop- 
erty  of  the  passeiiiicr  iisint;-  this  ticket,"  to  which  his  atten- 
tion   was    particuhirly   calU'd    at    the  time   he   received    it. 


which  a  niiiii  oliscrvcs  in  takin<;  cart'  of  himself  or  liis  own  pi-oixTiv. 
Tlu'  most  Tfasoiialdc  constnictioii  to  In-  ;>;lvcii  to  the  sti|Milalioii  in  view 
of  tiic  circiim.-'taiii'fs  niulcr  wiiit'ii  it  was  made  ami  the  only  on(>  I  think 
the  law  will  pt'rmit  is  this:  The  persons  ridinj;-  on  tln'  train  to  take  eai-e 
of  the  stock  will  (In  so  at  their  own  risk  of  personal  injuiy  fifun  causes 
not  prodnceil  liy  the  wilful  nii-t'ondiict.  <;;ross  neiiii^ience  or  want 
of  ordinary  care  of  the  carriers  or  their  servants  in  the  control  and 
inanaifenient  of  the  raili'oad  on  which  theni.-ehcs  an<l  the  stock  were  to 
he  carried.  Had  Ward,  in  jicneral  terms,  au'reed  to  assume  all  risks  as  to 
the  transportation  of  the  stock,  the  carriers  would  still  have  lieen  liahle. 
for  ^^ross  i;e<r|ii;enc(?  or  a  want  of  due  care,  'i'he  parties  inijiht  hy  sm  i> 
aj^reement  have  sncceeilcd  in  estahlishin;^  the  relation  as  to  this  transae- 
tioii  of  an  ordinary  hailee  and  private  carrier  for  hire.  Unl  a  pri\al(! 
carrier  for  hire  is  auswerahle  for  <i;ross  ne;jlijjence  or  a  want  of  due  care. 
There  are  cases  in  res|)cct  to  the  transportation  of  projiei'ty  j^ivinj::  ii 
.•iimilar  construction  to  stipulations  as  hroad  and  coinprcheusivii  as  the 
present  oiu!.'' 

^:*4  N.  Y.  !!}(!.     J'his  case  in  tlie  court  below  appears  iu)t  lo  liave  been 
reported. 


rii.  ix.] 


rONSIUKKATlON. 


2!)1 


Wliilc  jroiirii'  in  (lie  (lofciidaiil's  ciU's  fi'om  Udfhcstor  to  Al- 
l»;iiiy  oil  lli(»  nionMiifi' of  tlic  lllli  of  M;iy.  lie  \\:is  killed  in 
«'(tns''(|iK'n('('  of  llic  hrcakinji'  of  a  Ijiitiu^'  over  tlic  SiMi(|Uoit 
criM  U.  On  llic  trial  it  was  proved  that  the  hritluc  was  l)uilt 
of  unsuilaMe  materials  n( \ulisifiitly  used  h\  the  traekinastei- 
of  tile  road  in  its  eoiisti'uetion.  The  trial  jiidii'e  instrnetv'd 
tlie  jmv  as  follows:  "  If  Perkins  was  ridin/j;  iijion  the  free 
|)ass,  he  was  i-idinir  ajxin  the  eonditiona  annexed  to  it.  Hut 
notwithstandin«i"  such  eomlilions,  if  the  neirlij^enee  of  {he 
defendants  was  ^rross  and  eul|)al)|e;  if  it  was  of  such  a 
character  that  it  would  sul)ject  the  parly  to  prosei'Ution  for 
fraud  or  crime — then  it  does  not  come  within  those  coiidi- 
ticns.  In  other  words,  if  this  ticket  is  in  the  nature 
of  ii  contract,  the  parties  to  the  contract  did  not  contemp- 
late such  cases  as  are  fraudulent  or  criminal  in  their  charac- 
ter. The  statut(!  jjrovides  that  when  culpable  ncirlif^cMico 
causes  the  death  of  a  party,  such  neirlijroiu'e  amounts  to  a 
felony.  If  you  shall  find  that  ne<jfli<:ence  iu  the  construc- 
tion of  the  l>rid}x<S  or  in  sufferinj;'  it  to  remaiji  in  that  con- 
dition, was  gross  and  eulpahle  in  its  character  amonntinj;  to 
a  fraud  or  crime,  the  defeiulant  is  liable  notwithstaudiiiir 
the  conditions  of  the  pass,  and  you  are  to  determine  from 
the  evidence  what  the  character  of  this  neirliji'ence  was.  You 
will  look  at  this  case  exactly  as  if  Kvarts,  the  trackmaster, 
was  the  owner  of  the  road,  and  if  there  was  such  a  de«rree 
of  ne^iitieiice  as  to  amouit  to  irross  or  culpable  nei>Tn>ence 
on  his  part,  such  as  would  sul>ject  him  to  indictmiJiit  for 
manslauiihter  had  he  been  the  owner  of  the  road — then  the 
defendants  are  lialile  because  his  neirliircnce  is  their  negli- 
<>;ence.  The  statute,  in  reirard  to  such  neulijxi'iice,  is  this : 
[readinir  the  statute  detinitive  of  )iianslau;>hler  in  the  fourth 
deirrec  for  culi)able  neulijreiicel.  If  the  neHiijence  of  the 
trackmaster  canu'  u{)  to  this,  so  that  he  would  ln'  intlictable, 
the  defendants  are  lialile  although  Mr.  Perkins  was  riding 
on  a  free  pass  and  notwithstanding  its  conditions."  The 
jury  found  a  verdict  for  tlu^  plaintiff  for  $,')0(H>  which,  on 
appeal  to  the  Ct)urt  of  Appeals,  was  reversed.     The  o[)inion 


■  \ 


292 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAIIKIKIiS. 


[Vii.  i\. 


^■) 


of  the  coui-t  was  (lolivi'ivil  hy  E.  D.  Smith,  J.,  wlio  said: 
"Assuming;  dial  iln*  pass  on  uliicli  tlic  (It'ccascd  was  lidinji; 
is  to  Id'  n'«;ar(l(M|  as  a  tVcc  lickd,  and  tliat  the  d(>f('iidaiils 
wci'c  canvinu'  the  <lcc(«as<'d  liratiiitoiisly,  indcpciidciif ly  of 
llu>  (iiifslioii  wiicllicr  Mr.  I't-rkiiis  cxpn-ssly  a<rr(>«'d  to 
assume  all  risU  of  acfidciils  upon  the  trip,  the  dcft'iidanls 
would  l)(>  clearly  lial)]«'  for  aiiv  iniiirv  sustaiiuvl  hv  liiiu  if 
ho  hud  HiH'vived  tli«'  same;  and  in  this  adion,  on  (he  same 
iri'ound,  would  he  liable  also  to  th(*  plaintiff.  llavin«r  re- 
ceived the  deceased  into  their  cars,  they  would,  in  this  view, 
1)0  hound  to  carry  him  safely.  They  were  and  are  not 
hound  to  carry  him  or  any  person  <j:i'atuitously  ;  l»ul  under- 
taking;; to  carry  him,  they  must  do  it  carefully,  as  with  other 
passenp'rs.  This  was  sotth>d,  in  [jrinciple,  in  the  case  of 
Co[/f/n  V.  lievnaril/^  \n  that  case  the  defendant  undcrlo(»k 
to  take  uj)  several  lioi^sheads  of  brandy,  then  in  ii  c'crlain 
cellar,  and  lay  them  d(»wn  apiiu  in  a  certain  ollu-r  cellar, 
and  did  the  woi'k  so  carelessly  (hat  one  of  tlu^  casks  was 
staved  and  a  irrcat  i|iiantity  of  the  brandy  lost.  The  de- 
f(Midant  was  a  mere  private  person,  and  it  was  claimed  that 
as  he  was  not  a  connnon  portci-  and  was  actinir  jziatuitously 
he  was  iM)t  liable.  \\n\  upon  very  full  arjiumcnt  an<l  after 
much  consideration,  it  was  held  that  having'  assumed  and 
undertaken  to  do  the  woik,  he  was  l)ound  to  do  it  cai-efully, 
and  was  liable  for  any  injury  resultin;;'  from  his  ne<rliireneo. 
This  precise  question  was  decided  in  this  court  in  Xnlfon  v. 
Wextevn  Railvond  Corpora f ion;"  and  in  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  in  Philadrlphiit  d*  UeadiiKj  liail- 
road  Co.  r.  D>'rh>/ ;  •''  in  T/ie  Xno  World  v.  khi;/:'' 
and  in  (rilh'nwator  v.  ^^adixo)^  <(*  Indianapolis  liail- 
road  (■o))ipa)i>/:'*  Assuminji.  then,  that  Perkins  a^n-eed  to 
take  '  all  the  risks  of  accidents,  and  expressly  aj^reod  that 


V 


"2  1/1.  Rnym.  000  (1704). 
■wi.-)\.  Y.Vm   (IsriT). 
5"  U  How.  KiS  (18r>2). 
•^  IG  How.  477  (lS.-):{). 
^5  Iiul.  :U0  (1851). 


BUh' 


CM.   IX.] 


CONSIDKUATION. 


2!>:] 


:..' 


llic  (IcffiKliiiit^  sliould  iiol  lie  li'ilil;' imil.-riiny  ciiTmiistaiiccs, 
wlictlicr  of  iit'U'lijjri'iicc  l)V  tln'ir  iiLii'iit     or  ollicru  isc,  f(ir  :iiiv 
in  jury  to  his  ))its()ii  ' — for  such  uw  tin-  terms  df  thi'  licl-'ct-  — 
the  (|iH'stioii   viumIiis,  \vl;;il  is  thocxt  -ul  miuI   force  of  -^uch 
iiirreeuieiil  y     i  ,)OM  il  <  fuce,  it  is  dearly  sullicicnily  c(»iii|mc- 
lieusive  to  euiIuiU'c  cvei'V  (Ic^-criiiliou  of  iKcidciit ,  ciisuiih V 
or  risk  iittciuliuLi' I'ailroad  lrn\cl.      I'ut  il  must  oltvioiisly  iie 
sultject    to   s()U<e    limitatioM   iliui  i|Uillilie;tlioli.      It  oULfht  Hot 
to  Itc  coii^iilentt  as  applying' to  such  risks  as  could  not  have 
hecM  uithiu  the  iuleiit  and  eoutem)ilatiou  of  the  |>arties.  and 
c:iu  not  apply  to  such  as  are  not    within  the   lejiitiniiite  com- 
pass (if    eoinract    upon   (irinciples   of    pul)lic   |)()licy.      '1  hi' 
ieai'ned  juilue  who  tried  this  rase  at  the  circuit  charircd  the 
jury  thai   'while  if  the  deceased   was  ridinu' upon  thejjass, 
he  was  ridinir  upon  thi    ' onditioiis  annexed  to  the  pass,  yet 
not witlistandinii'  the  <'ondilions  thus  particnlai'ly  expressetl, 
if  the  ne!jlii:"ence  of  the  defendants  was  <;ross  and  culpable  ; 
if  it  was  of  such  a  cliaracter  that  it  would  subject  the  parly 
to  a  pi'osecution  for  fraud  or  crime — then  it  does  not   come 
within     these    condition-.'       in    othi'f    \\(»rds,    that  if   the 
lieki't  is  in  its  nature  a  contract,  the  parties  to  the  contract 
did  not  «'onteniplate  such  cases  of  ni'iiliircnce  as  are  fraudu- 
lent or  criminal   in   theii"  charactei'.     The  rule  of  exceptiim 
from    the    appai    111    scope    and    purview    of    the    contrai't, 
asserted   in   lliis  part    i>f  the  charue,  I  tliiidi  can  not  be  sus- 
tained,     li  -states  thai  fraudulent  ami  ciiniinal  nejiliirence  is 
not  wilhin   the  scope  of  tiie  contract.     This   would  clearly 
be  -u,  if  l!ie  defendant  were  a  nal  ural  perxm  and  was  stipidat- 
inu"  in  respect  merely  to  his  pi-rsoiial  jnis.       And  if  it  were 
not    SI),  fraud   vitiates  all  i-ontracts  :  and   no  person  will  I>e 
allowed  to  stipulate  for  crime.      If  the  difendants  were  pri- 
vate pcr-ons.  "vho  coiild  commit  crime  and  couKl  be  indicted 
and  con\i<ted  under  the  statute  o['  mnrdi-r  or  manslauiiiiter 
for  killinii'  .Mr.  Terkins.   most    certainly  such   crimi^  v.'ould 
iiol  i»e  within  the  pur\iew  of  this  contract.     !t  is  (piite  clear 
thai   Mr.  I'ci'kins  never  intended  to  auree,  or  the  defendants 
to  ^'i'.ulate.  that  ihey,  by  their  d   feinlunts  or  agents,  might 


|i '! 


2\H 


Tin:  CONl'KAC   IS  OF  CAUIMKItS. 


[<  II.    IX. 


r 


;'  I 


11' 

ml 


.^.- 


kill  liiiM.  Si;c!i  wii-  not  IIm'  l»ar;i!iiii.  NO  oiif  will  ih<'Ii'1mI 
(lilt  the  ri^lil  l(»  coininit  murder  or  suicide  could  i>»'  I'lu- 
IdJiccd  ill  \\\\s  orniiv  coiitrarl.  Like  mII  oiIht  aLvn'<'infnls, 
this  contract  must  Ix' cousinicd  in  tin-  liiilil  of  the  t'.\istin;j; 
facts  and  circuinstiuiccs  at  the  lime  il  was  madi',  :ind  not 
derive  its  const I'uct ion  Ironi  -ul>s('(|U»'Ul  c\cnls.  Piirti(  -  in 
inakii);^:  a  eontrael  must  lie  licid  lo  contcin|ilat<'  all  tlie  mdi- 
navy  and  possihie  incidents,  aceid«'nl>  or  eontin^<'neic>  wliicli 
may  alit'iid  its  cxcciiticui  ;  and  >ucli  accident-"  and  .oiilin- 
jireiieies  must  l)e  deemed  within  the  |>uv\iewof  I  h- c(»nlract , 
not  as  ;ie«'idi'ills  expected,  liut  as  act  ideiils  po-siltle. 

"  What,  then,  did  the.-e  parties  mean  liy  this  cdiitracty 
The  cardinal  riih' of  inlcrprclalion  i>.  what  wa- the  intent  of 
the  eonlracliiifi  pariies  at  ihctimeof  making  the  eoniraet  y 
In  tin-  li/zht  of  this  rule,  wirtt  :ii'e  the  fact-^?  l'<-rkins  ap- 
plied to  the  del'endanls'  director  for  a  free  pa>-.  A  fi'ee 
pass  means  ihe  p. '  ilene  of  ridiii;;  o\cr  the  defendants' 
railroad  without  payment  (d'  I  lie  <'U>iomary  fare.  The  I'e- 
fendanls  are  a  r.ailroad  coi  poration,  exercisiui:'  tlx-  ri'jhls 
and  >ui)ject  to  the  lesponsiiiiliiic.^  of  common  c;irricr>,  and 
li.ilile,  in  a  eivil  action,  in  this  capacity,  for  all  injuries  to 
persons  or  property  tran>porled  l.y  ihem  resiillint;'  from  the 
neulineiice  or  unskilfidiiess  of  iheii-  a;:'ents  oi-  servants. 
'Ihe  l)Usin(>ss  of  the  defeiulants  is  ;dl  necessarily  performed 
l»y  aiicnts  .-md  servants,  ;in<l  f'le  defendanis  are  m'cessai'ily 
ol)li:red  to  employ  a  lar^ic  numlicr  (d"  persons  as  such  a^'ents 
an<l  servant'",  souh-  <d'  whom  will  he  mori'  or  less  c;iri'h>s.s 
or  neelii.'-ent ,  not  w  it list.indinu'  and  in  despite  of  Ihe  utmost 
eare,  diliixenee  and  caution  in  their  employment .  Thi-  de- 
fendants iire  IraiisportiuLf  pci-ons  and  passeiiLi'crs  l.y  iIm- 
powerful  .'lijeney  of  steam  :  and  when  aeeidciits  did  occur, 
they  were  li.ahle  to  he  attended,  more  or  Ic  s,  wiih  \erv 
sei-ions  eoiise(|nenees.  This  the  parties  lioth  well  kn(  w  .  and 
they  also  well  kiiov  th:d  raili'oad  aceid(>nts  v,''i'e  of  frcipriit 
oeeiiirence:  that  railroad  tr.ivel  was  suhject  ecn-lanlly  to 
peiils  resultinj;  from  the  earele^-  and  nei;!ii:iiic»  of  en;.'in- 
eers,    conductors,  liaiiuau'enien,   Krakemen,    switeh.-tt  ndeis, 


(11.  I.\.] 


CONWIDKItATION. 


2!>r> 


:iii(l  oIIh'IN  :  tliiit  li;iiii>  ufi'c  ri(M|ii(iii  |y  |  lndw  miH  t  In- liiitU 
(irriillir  ill  I'ollisioii  iiiid  \\(>|-(>  >i|iijrit  toM  Vill'icl  V  ut'  ;i*'('i(l('llts 
aii'l  r;i>ii;ili  ii'>  :io';iii)s|  wliit'li  iiii  liiiiiiiiii  )>ni<lcii('c  or  skill  in 
(In- fiii|il()viiiciil  uf  iiLrciits  coiilil  ciiiirclN  jfiiMi'd  ;  mid  tliiK  nil 
sinli  ;ii  iliji'iiis  involve  iiiiMvoiiliiltl\ ,  more  or  less,  |o>s  of 
lift'  or  liiiii)  or  l»otli|y  iiijiii'v,  iiiid  other  disa>lroiis  coiisc- 
i|Ui'liri'^.  Willi  |i<t('('(I  klioult'dl,''!'  of  llioc  I'iicls,  Mr.  Voy- 
kilis  .■i>l\t'(|  Cor  iilid  !lccc|ilcd  llic  iVfc  |»m>s,  ii|m)||  (lie  express 
(•oiiditioii  tli.'it  In-  -.lioiild  '  iis-iiliiu'  iill  risk  of  iircidciils  ' 
;iiid  (Xiii't's^ly  ii;ri'»'tMl  '  thai  the  coiniciiiy  shall  not  he  lial)N' 
iiiidtr  any  I'irciinistaiiccs,  whether  l»y  the  iieirli|L!'eiice  of  the 
dei'e:iil nils'  aL'ents  or  othdwisc.  for  any  iiijnry  to  the  per- 
.son."  Sneh  is  the  liaruain.  It  eaii  mean  nolliiim'  else 
than  liial  I'erkins  will  lake  for  hiin-eif  the  risk  of  all  aeei- 
deiits  aiMJ  injuries  to  his  person  atteiidinj:'  his  eonteinplated 
trip  in  the  defendats"  ears  from  lutehester  t(»  AII)aiiy.  so 
f.  r  as  such  areideiits  and  injuries  miiilit  result  from  the 
neulip'iiie  of  the  defendants'  agents  and  servants.  'I'lie 
defeiMlints.  ill  \  iew  of  the  aceideiils  attended  willi  niiieli 
peennia|-y  loss  residtiliii"  eoiistjintly  fl'oiii  the  nei;iiiieiice  of 
some  (d"  their  airents,  proposed  to  eai'ry  .Mr.  Perkins  with- 
out ehariic  to  Alhany  upon  eonditicm  that  he  would  take  for 
hims<'lf  the  risks  attemlinir  the  trip.  The  i|iiestioii  i)elwei'ii 
the  p.irties  was  simply  which  should  lake  the  risk  of  such 
aeeideiits  as  miiiht  oeelir  in  eonse(|iienee  (d'  the  lieuliufenee 
of  some  (d'  the  defendants'  many  aiicnts.  Without  an 
aixreeinent  exempt imr  and  al»s(dvin<r  them  from  all  liahility 
in  I'espeel  to  siieh  .•leeideiils,  and  the  injuries  ri'sultinu'  there- 
from, the  (hd'emlants  would  he  leu'ally  respoiisihle  for  such 
injuries.  Mr.  Perkins  assumes  the  risk  for  himself.  He 
heeonies  his  own  insurer.  He  jihsolves  the  defendants  in 
advaiiee  from  all  lial)ility  '  for  any  injury  to  his  pers(»n  ' 
from  sneh  neLrliiieiiee.  It  was  a  f.iir  insurahle  risk,  and 
I'erkins  aui'eed  to  assume  it  for  himself.  If  this  he  the 
eontraet,  upon  wind  prineiple  it  ean  l)e  claimed  th.at  it  does 
not  emlu'aee  the  accidents  which  may  I'esult  from  the  t;ross 
neirliir''iiee  of  the  defendants'   a!j;euls,   I   can   not   conceive. 


I  i 


I! 


ii 


20(5 


TMK  CON TUACTS  OF  C.M.MMKKS, 


[cm.  IX, 


1: 


li 


I      ^. 


I 


TIic  contract  makes  no  cxccplion  in  I'cspcci  to  dciiicc  of 
ncii'liiicncc.  ll  cnil>i!iccs  all  Mciii'ccs.  It  lists  the  term 
neiiliiicnee  in  its  ueneial  i:enei'ie  sense.  To  hold  that  it 
(joes  not  eml»l'ace  ii'i'oss  neiiliii'enee  is  to  inler|iolate  into  il  a 
(|ualifiealion  not  made  liy  the  ])arties,  :ind  wiiieji  tends  nia- 
teriallv  to  im|)aii' and  nidlil'\  its  foi-ce,  forllie  parties  wil 
Uni'W  that  acv-idents  were  iialije  !<»  re>nll  from  the  L;ross 
neiilnicnee  (d"  (hd'endants'  .•'-•enl>.  as  u(  !l  as  fron>  inlei-ior 
nei>iii>-ence.  The  conti'ael  iclated  to  the  acts  (d"  third  pir- 
sons,  a<tin<:'  as  aiicnts  of  the  (hd'endants.  Perkins  aureed 
to  take  his  risk  in  respect  to  the  neiiiiirenee  of  sneli  third 
persons.  He  took  it  entirely.  If  the  aL!'eiils  were  i^iiilt  \ 
of  criminal  ne!.;lii:i'nce,  which  is  oidy  anotln'r-  name  for 
irro-s  ncij;' line  nee  when  it  canses  deal  h  or  injury  to  life  or 
limli,  the  ancnt  himself  i>  pnnidialile  erinnnally  for  such  neir- 
liii't'iice.  The  principal  never  conid  lie  so  punished.  ||i> 
civil  responsihility,  t hcitd'oi'e.  is  di>charir«'d  Ity  the  contract. 
'Hiere  is  no  reason  why  the  defendants  slionid  he  re->ponsj- 
hle  foi'  the  i^ross  neiilijrence  (d'  their  an'ciiis.  more  than  for 
sliiiht  ne<jliL:'ence.  'I'o  the  prin<iple  asserted  in  tix'  t  liarire. 
I  have  tacitly  assented  in  t\V(»  cases,  in  llisscll  r.  Xi  tr  Vm  '.• 
('t)ifr(i/  /t'di/i-ddf/  ( '(iiiifxnii/,''^  and  in  tins  case  at  p'liera! 
term  which  follows,  and  was  decided  upon  the  authority  of 
that  case.  Hut  I  am  satistied  upon  rellection  that  it  is 
essentially  unsound.  *  *  I'lion  the  irround  taken  in  that 
part  of  the  charire  referi'cd  to,  that  if  the  neirliiicnee  of 
the  defendents"  a^^Mil,  K\arts.  was  <rross  and  culpalilc,  it 
was  not  endtraced  within  the  contract,  and  the  (hd'endants 
were  iiahh'  in  tliis  action  for  the  consei|uenc<'s  roidtinir 
fr(»m  such  lU'irlip-..  •",  the  learned  judiic.  1  think,  ei'red  ; 
and  the  verdict  can  not  l)e  sustained."  Skldkn,  ('.  ,1.. 
Dkmo,  Daviks,  Ai  i,kn  and  (ioi  i.d,  .Id..  concurre(|. 

liissi'll  V.  ^I'lr  York'  Ci-iilral  liiiilrninl  (  'niiiiidiii/  '  is  the 
hist  of  these  jxreat  cases,  and  is  perhaps  also  the  most  im- 
portant,   havinir  l»een  ariiued   three    different    time-    in    the 

■■■^  -IW  Hurt).  <1(»-J  (1  S.V.I). 

^•'  'J'.t  Uiirlt.  tr'-2  (is.V.l).  -J.".  N.  V.  1 12  (.lS(i2). 


CM.   IX.] 


COXSIDKUATIOX. 


t>!)7 


Court  (if  Appciils.  As  ill  )St/iifh'N  case,''' the  lick',  i  whose 
cciiditiiiMs  the  (Irft'iKliiiits  siicccssfully  iivaiU'd  1  lioiiisolvos  of 
was  a  slork  pass,  and  lli(>  facts  were  these:  On  tlic  /ith  of 
Sepleinlx'i',  IS,")"),  .losiah  I^.  Bis.-i'll.  the  luisi)aiid  of  the; 
phiiiilitT,  took  passau'e  on  the  <lefeiidaiits"  railroad  from 
!liirfah)to  Aloaiiy,  ii|>oii  a  lieket  received  from  tht- (h'feiui- 
aiits,  which  read  on  lis  face  as  ^■()^o\vs  : 

••  Xew  Voi'k  Central  Kailroad.  Cattle  Di'ah'f's 'I'iekel  on 
l*ass(!ii:"ef  Train,  (iood  for  two  days  ffom  date.  (.\)ndiie- 
(of  will  pass  'I'aylof  l'c  Hissell.  owners  of  two  ears  of  livo 
tifock,  from  Ilnfl'alo  lo  .Vlhany. 

[  .\'n/  IrdimJ)  rali/i'.'] 

"  If  presented  liy  any  other  |)erson  than  the  one  named 
herein,  liie  conductor  will  lake  it  up  ;ind  chai'<:-e  the  person 
holdiiiii"  the  same  the   reuiihir  fare.      Sept.;'»th.  1S,')(). 

I).    \j.    KUKMYKK. 

['/'«/•»  (trf'r.1  K.  Ci.AKK,  jr.  .Vircnt." 

The  followiiiij:  notice  was  printed  on  (he  hack: 
•'The  owner  of  stock  recei\iim'  this  ticket  assumes  all 
risks  of  accident,  and  ex|)ress|y  a<rrees  that  the  company 
shall  not  he  liahle,  under  any  eireuiiistances,  whether  of 
ii('<rliir(.|i((.  h\  their  au'ents  or  otherwise,  for  any  injury  to 
the  person,  or  for  any  loss  or  injury  to  the  stock  of  said 
owner,  shipped  l»v  >tock  or  fi-eiLdit  trains." 

On  the  same  (1;.\  liissell  shippe<l  on  hoard  of  the  defend- 
ants' ens,  for  the  tiriii  of  Taylor  it  llisseil.  tw(»  carloads 
of  cattle,  and  sii'tM-*!  a  pfint<Ml  aiireement  relative  to  the 
transportation  of  th'-  cattle  which  contained  the  foUowinir 
clause:  »•  And  it  is  further  ajin-ed  l»et\\een  the  parties  here- 
to, that  the  persons  ridinir  free  t<i  f;d<<'  charire  of  (he  slock, 
do  so  at  their  own  risk  of  personal  injury,  from  whatever 
cause."  On  the  same  day.  at  aliout  10  oClock  in  (he 
evcninir.  while  liissell  wa-  >ittinn'  in  the  passeu:  r  or  emi- 
trrant  car  altailn-d  to  the  freiuhl  train  which  carried  the 
eallle,  at  Port  liyron.  in  Caytiua  eoinily,  w  lii<h  was  wailing 
for  the  cxpic-s  [(assenm'i  train   fi'om   the   we>l    to  pass,  (he 


II'  '' 
'!5  .' 


2;)8 


THK  t()NTKA<T.s  OK  CAKI!!  KliS 


[oil.    IX.    , 


1 1: 


oxpiTss  tniiii  ('Mnii'  ij|)  :iii(l  tin'  loi-oniotivc  Mtliiclicd  lollic 
(^xprt'ss  (rain  I'aii  into  tin-  car  uiicrt'  liisscll  was,  and  killed 
hiui  and  tiv,-  oilu-i.s.  Tlic  jmv  found  llial  the  dcalli  of 
IJissell  was  rauscd  l)\  (lie  <iross  Ufnliiifiicc  of  llic  aut'iits 
and  si'i'vanl.s  oi'  the  dcfcndanls.  TIm-  ciriaiil  jiiduc  in  liis 
cliariri' 1<>  tli<'  jiiiv,  >1a1('d  totlicui  the  (liffcrcnt  dciirccs  of 
ncirliii'cncc  as  rccoiiiii/cd  liv  tlif  coninion  law,  and  that  tin- 
defendants  could  oni\  Ite  held  lialde  for  uross  nciiliiicncc. 
'I'he  jury  found  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff  for 
$'),(>()(),  which  on  appeal  to  the  Supi'enic  Court  was  uuani- 
niouslv  atlirnicd,  the  followiiiif  opinion--  licini;-  tlcli\('i'ed  liy 
tile  judiTcs  named  : 

Johnson,  .1.  :  "The  jurv  have  found.  Iiv  ihcii- \erdicl ,  that 
the  death  of  IJissell  was  occasioned  i>v  the  uross  nei:lii;'ence 
of  th<'  .-liicnts  of  the  det'eudants  at  thetiuM'  id"  t!ie  rulli.^ion. 
UeiniT  neii'liirence  of  ihat  <'haractei'  which  re-ullcd  in  the 
deaili  of  <eve!-al  huniaM  lieiiii;>,  it  wa^  criminal  in  it>  nature, 
and  woidd  havi-  siilijcctcil  the  -jiiiltv  ai^cnl  lo  indii-tmcnt 
and  punishrn:'nl  under  the  statute.  Neither  t'.ie  contract 
nor  the  ticket  can  Ite  couNirucd  to  refer  lo  injuries  Iroin 
such  a  cause,  it  would  l»e  aiiain>l  t!ic  xttled  rules  of  con- 
struction to  hold  that  injuries  from  rriniinai  <'auscs  were  in- 
(endcil  l»\  the  partii's.  In  IIV/A-n  /•.  .\ ' /'•  )'nr/i  ('ni/rn/ 
Jlilhoiiil  ( 'iHii jui mj,'  it  \\a>  conceiled  li\'  the  learned  judu'c 
who  delivci'cd  the  opinion,  that  ncL'Tnicncc  >o  (  ulpahle  as  to 
iinpiv  fnmd  oi-  l»a<i  faith  wouhl  imt  l.c  one  (d'  the  risks  as- 
sumed In  the  passeniier,  when,  ii\  accept ini:  a  free  ticket  or 
pass,  he  had  ixpresslv  a<ireed  t(»  assume  all  risk  (d"  aici- 
dents,  wheihe'-  occasioned  hv  nei:li;^'ence  of  the  conipan\'s 
au'cnls  or  otherwise.  The  injurv  here  arisint:  fioni  a  i.iiise 
not  within  tin'  lisk  constitutes  a  ii<iod  cairsc  of  action 
ajraiiist  (he  defendants.  WhatcM-r  niav  lie  said  in  the  Itooks 
ahont  dejjfi'ees  of  ne;^lii:ence  (hev  are  clearlv  recoeiii/ed  hv 
our  statute,  which  niak'S  culpahle  nci:lii:ence  i»\  which  a 
human  heiniz'  is  killed  m.inslaii;.:htei-  in  the  fourth  dcirrt-e. 
The  i-cmark  (d"  iht  judire  in  his  char;;*'  to  llm  jurv.  that  it 
'•'  -ji;  iJini).  i;ii  (is.v.);. 


(11.  I\.J 


i;onsii>i;katk)N. 


211. 1 


scriiK'tl  lo  him  a  case  of  lii'oss  iiciilip'iicc,  is  no  mound  lor 
an  i'>;i'i'j)iion.  Tiif  whole  (|U('stion  wa.s  suhiniltcil  to  (hciu. 
I  do  iioi  lind  auv  «'i'ror  in  the  rhafjic  or  in  ihr  rfrii-i:d  to 
ciiaiLit',  and  am  of  ihr  opinion  lliai  llit-  orch'i-  rtd'iisinii'  a  new 
triiil  should  l>t'  allinni'd." 

&>TK«»'>i<i,  .1,  :  "I  cone  nr  in  llir  rcsnlt  of  the  forciroiuiiopiii- 
i(»ii  :  1)11  I  think  there  is  no  diffcnMicc  in  priiniple  hetween 
tlii>  ra>e  and  the  case  of  W'l/h's  r,  Xcir  York  Cfulral  linll- 
iixii/  ('injij)inii/.^  In  the  laller  ease,  it  was  aiimilted  hv  tlx' 
parties  that  the  plaintiff  took  passage  at  Lyons  For  Ali)anv 
on  a  ])a>seni:er  train  <d"  ears  of  ihe  defendants:  that  while 
sc'aied  in  the  forward  p:i>>enii'er  car,  a  eollisioii  occurred 
lieiueen  thai  I  lain  of  car-  and  the  cars  of  a  frei^clit  oreatlh; 
train  slaiulini:' on  the  -ame  liiickof  the  (hd'tiidanls'  road, 
wliei<'l>y  the  liaiiiiai:*'  eai*  of  inc  pa>>enii<'r  train  was  driven 
liaek  intotlie  car  where  the  plaintiff  was  scale<l,  and  he  was 
injiii'cd  :  andthiii  such  collision  and  injur\  were  occasioned 
ii\  c;i!-ele--ne--s  and  iM^^liiicr.re  (d"  I  he  defendant-  and  their 
>ervants  in  cliaiuc'  <d"  liie  respective  irains.  'I'his  was  all 
the  evidence  in  the  ca.>e  in  explanation  of,  or  in  retard  to, 
the  .(illision.  'f  the  neu'liii't'iice  thus  proved  was  not  a  mis- 
deiiieanor  for  licii  ;in  indictment  would  lie  at  commou 
lavv.  it  was  ceilainly  as  ci:!paole  as  the  neu'iiiTene*'  in  the 
picsent  ea>e.  I'ori  unat el\  .  ihe  con>ei|uences  were  not  so 
serious:  l»ui  that  makes  no  dilterence  as  to  theuiade  of  the 
netiiiji'i'iK'e.  'I'here  is  no  force  in  the  idea  suuiicsted  that 
as  ihe  parli«'s  have  not  desii;nat»'d  the  decree  of  the  ne;ili- 
iiciice,  theconri  must  repird  it  as  simply  or«linary  nej:li- 
ffv-nee  :  for  without  reference  to  i lie  admi--ion  in  terms  of 
neM-iiu-.'nee.  the  frict>  atlinitted,  unexplained,  show  sjfross  or 
enlpaliie  nei:it:_  mcc.  'I  lie  defendants  wit  li  one  train  of  curs 
ran  inio  ani>fi*<r  nain  of  the  defendants  on  (he  same  track; 
Miid  upon  Hhese  naked  facjs  the  law  wduld  not  presume 
ti»#  e  was  a  ivistjfication,  e\cu-e  or  pallialiui:  circumslauee, 
»•<  Wtered    lo    he    prove<l,  hut    adjudil'es    there    v.asneilhcr. 

>  i*.;  Il;uli.  till    I  is.VS). 


s^w 


;ui() 


TIIK  r()NTHA(TS  OF  CAUKIKKS.  [fll.   IX. 


Si 


'M 


The  principle  of  li:il)ilily  in  this  was,  in  my  opinion,  (Miually 
iil)plir:iltl«'  in  the  (ttiicr  ciisc," 

Smith.  .1.:  "In  (he  coMclusion  towhii-li  my  ln'ollii-r  .Ioiin- 
s<>\  has  come  in  this  case,  and  in  his  reasons  in  tiic  main,  I 
concur,  hnt  not  in  the  view  of  my  hrotiiei'  Sti;(».\(;,  that 
there  is  no  distinction  in  principK'  between  this  case  and 
tlial  of  ]\'r//fs  r.  Xi'ir  Ynrli  Cciitrdl  UtiUmiiil  ( 'miijiduif:" 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  verdict  in  this  ca-<' can  he  Mistiiined, 
and  Itotli  decision>  stand  top'tlier.  It  v.j's  not  intended  to 
<leny  in  the  ca.M'  of  WeMes,  that  there  were  not  (htrereni 
(k'irrees  ()!•  shades  of  neii'liuvnee,  hnt  to  cKpre-s  a  doui>l 
whether  tht-e  ih'ii-ree>  coidd  iie  (hiiiied  w  ith  sullicient  dis- 
tinctness for  any  |)ractical  purpose,  lint  however  this  mav 
ho,  there  i-  obviously  sncli  a  (h'tiri-e  of  netiTnicnce  as  in 
coinnioii  and  ie<ral  hni<:iia;_''e  is  known  and  dcsiLi'iMtcd  a.- 
irross  or  r-ulpalih'.  The  h-iii-Iatui-e  has  calh-d  ihi^  deijri-t'  of 
ne<rliirei>' e.  in  section,^  <;.  l.;  itmi  lit  of  artich-  I.tith'  :.\  chap- 
ter 1.  p;wt  A  of  the  Kex  ised  Statutes,'"  in  (h'linin;^'  man- 
slauirliter,  culpal>h'  ne;i'liirence.  Tin'  llMh  sc<tion  is  ;is  foi- 
U)ws  :  '  Kver;.  (»ther  kiliiui:  cd'  a  hinnan  heinir  l»ylhe  act. 
procurement  or  culpalih'  iicLdiirence  of  anoliier,  where  >ucii 
killinir  is  iHit  justiliahh-  or  e.\<-usal!le,  oris  not  in  saiil  act 
declared  murder  or  manslauirhter  in  some  oilier  deiri-e«', 
shall  he  deemed  man>launhter  in  the  fourth  decree. "'  This 
de<free  (d"  neuflifi'ence,  whether  called  culpaltle  or  Liross, 
means  the  same  thin'jf — that  want  id"  care  and  reirard  to  hi> 
duty  which  ev<'ry  man  of  common  sen.-e  applies  lo  hin!>elf 
and  his  own  affairs  oi  pro|)cii\.  From  the  <  <i!i-ei|uence> 
resultiuir  frctm  ihisdru^iee  of  ni-jrliijcnce.  whether  death  en- 
sue or  not.  no  person  lan  chum  exemption  liy  coutiaii.  if 
the  defendant  was  a  natural  per>on,  and  the  nc'jTui'cm  -  was 
his.  as  the  jury  have  found  this  to  lie  a  ca-iccd"  i^ro-s  ne<j- 
liircnce.  nolliin<f  further  nee(|  lu-  said  in  suppoit  of  theii 
verdict.      Ihit  the  chd'enilant  is  a  ccrpoj'ation  aLi'rrej.'-alc.  and 

"•'•JC,  itarli.  CI  I  f  Is.Vi). 


CII,   IX. J 


CONSIDKKATFON. 


;5oi 


coultl  not  lu'  iruilly  of  iiuiiisliniirlitor  or  :my  otIuM'  crime. 
As  it  iiiis  IK)  soul,  it  cMii  incur  no  moral  <:uili .  It  acts  neces- 
sarily through  ollicers  and  other  aji'ents.  'I'liis  fact,  obvi- 
ously, should  not  confei"  upon  it  any  dcixree  of  ii'responsi- 
hility  in  the  affairs  of  l)usiness  which  would  not  a|)i)ly  to 
natural  persons.  Its  aj>i'uts  must  necessarily  he  liahle  crim- 
inally, like  all  other  natui'al  persons,  tmd  civilly  for  wilful 
wronjrs.  The  ease  of  Welles  was  put  upon  the  distinction 
hetween  the  neirlimnce  of  the  principal  and  the  negliujenee 
<»f  his  airents  and  serv:ints, 

"The  defendants  are  connnon  carriers  of  [lersons  ;ind  prop- 
erty. A  connnon  carrier  is  (uie  who  undertakes  for  hire  or 
I'cward  to  transport  the  persons  or  ijoods  of  such  as  ehooso 
to  employ  him  from  place  to  place.  As  the  ohlij^ation 
wiiich  the  carrier  assumes  rests  upon  the  basis  of  contract, 
express  or  implied,  it  would  seem  that  in  point  of  principle 
he  must  possess  the  same  rijrht  with  othei'  persons  to  make 
his  own  contracts.  Hut  this  i'ii:ht  is  clearl\  subject  to  some 
restriction.  The  carrier  is  deemed  to  «'.\crcise  a  t/tuis!  pub- 
lic employment  :  and  for  this  reason  and  in  this  respect,  it 
has  lonv:  luMMi  lu'ld  that  public  policy  re(|uires  some  limita- 
tion upon  this  absolute  i-i-iht.  The  defendants  are  a  railroad 
corpoi'Mtiou  and  exei'cise  a  public  franchise,  and  as  such  are 
doubtless  sul)iec|  to  Icijrislalive  coni I'ol  and  I'cst riclion  in  re- 
V'ard  to  the  maimer  of  doinir  their  business,  aiul  in  rejr.'ird 
to  the  character  and  extent  of  their  undertakinjis  and  obli- 
•rations  with  individuals.  But  as  common  cai-riers,  inde- 
p«'ndently  of  particular  leijfislatioii,  they  stand  ui)on  the 
same  c(Muinon  law  footinir  with  natural  |)ei's(uis,  and  the 
measure  of  their  responsibility  is  precisely  the  same.  Civ- 
illy, llu^  defendants,  as  common  carriers  of  i)ersons  for 
hire  or  reward,  are  liable  for  all  injuries  resulting:  from  the 
ne<j:li.urenc(>,  carelessness  or  unskilfulness  of  their  servants 
and  agents,  and  from  all  such  acts  of  ne<rlii;ence  for  which, 
if  they  were  natural  persons,  they  would  be  liabl(>  crimin- 
ally. They  clearly  i-an  not  exempt  themselves  from  civil 
resi)onsibility  by  contract.      Precisely  the  same  obligation 


k 


f  ? 


;)02 


TIIK  CONTKACTS  OK  CAKlMKIiS. 


[(•II.    IX. 


m 


rests  upon  llicm.  mimI  IIm'  same  i«'sti*icli<)ii  upon  llicii-  ii;j!il 
to  liiiiii  llicli-  iTspoiisiljilit V  l»y  roiili'acl  ('xi>(s,  as  woiilii  ap- 
ply to  a  iiaUiial  pcixm  in  llicir  place. 

*'\Vln'ii  raili'oad  or  oIIkt  (•orp(»ratioii>-  as>iiiii('  tlif  duty  and 
ciuploymciit  <d'  rniiiiiHtii  <'airi('r>,  as  in  ihis  case,  aiid  arj 
riitircly  l»y  olliccis  and  auriils,  as  tln-y  necessarily  iiiiist,  I 
coneeivc  tliat  tlie\  eaii  iiol  eoiitiact  I'oi' exemption  from  re- 
spoiisiliility  for  whatever  pertains  to  tlie  proprieloi'sliip  of 
the  railroiid,  nor  for  the  acts  of  that  ehiss  of  superior 
;ijrents  who  act  for  and  in  tiie  phiee  of  the  «-or|ioralion,  as 
otiieers,  directors  (ii-  olliei"  niana;^in<:-  aut'iits,  and  uho,  as 
such,  witiiin  the  trust  confided  to  them,  control  and  dir<'ct 
the  operations  of  the  corporation,  and  employ  its  inferior 
servants  and  aji'ents.  If  a  sinjile  natm-al  person,  for  in- 
stance, owned  the  defenihnits'  railroad  and  its  propei'ty,  and 
operated  tlu'  same  for  his  own  henelil,  he  would  be  hound 
to  employ  and  pr(»vide  skilful,  cai'eful,  soher  and  proper 
persons  us  en<:ineers,  conductors,  hrakenien,  switch-tenders 
and  in  all  other  positions,  and  would  he  hound  to  se(>  to 
it  that  the  trai-ks  of  his  railroad,  its  hrid'res,  turn-outs 
and  all  other  portions  of  his  road,  and  the  locomotives 
and  cars  in  us«'  thereon,  and  all  the  appurtenance's  of  the 
road,  were  in  a  safe  and  proper  condition.  He  could  not 
stipulate  lor  immunity  from  injuri<'s  i-csultiuir  from  neirli- 
trence  in  respect  to  any  such  paiiiculais,  no  riiore  than  he 
<'ould  for  had  faith  or  fraud.  .Ml  «'oiitra<'ts  exemptiuL^  him, 
or  seeking:'  to  exempt  him.  fi'oin  i'espon>il)ility  for  his  per- 
sonal neirli,ii<'ncc  or  fraud,  would  he  re|)u<rnant  to  puhiic 
policy,  antl  ai>solntely  void.  .\iid  the  same  lule,  I  think, 
siiould  he  applied  to  corporations.  I'uhlic  policy  forhids  the 
makin<i:  ity  them  of  any  contract  that  shall  exempt  them  from 
responsibility,  that  would  not  be  allowed  to  a  natural  person 
('xereisini:'  the  same  precise  employment .  .\  pi'ivate  person, 
operaliui:-  this  railrrtail  as  his  own,  mi;i;ht  stipulate  by  «'X- 
press  contract  I  tliiid<,  that  a  pi-rson  who  should  ride  fi'ee 
ovi'r  his  road  sluudd  take  I'isk  of  the  ueirli^jicnce  of  his  suii- 
ortlinate  ajrents  and  servants  in  runninj.^  his  trains  ;  provided 


^^^w^va 


I\. 


<l 


...X.] 


CONSIDKKATION. 


iMy.i 


mill 


:ui(l 

ilrt 

I,    I 
l( - 

>  (>r 

ri(»r 


us 


ilS 


rior 
iii- 
iiiid 
uiid 
•per 
In-s 
•  1(» 
Hits 

Vfs 
tll(> 
liut. 

irli- 


inu 
)cr- 


»in- 


tlic 
oil) 


on, 


cx- 


I'CC 

ui.- 


l!i:il  lie  liimscif  \Vii>  ficc  from  nil  iiriilijrcncc  in  tlicir  cni- 
ploynicnt ,  iliri'('li(Mi  oi-  ollicrw  isc.  Nd  one  lias  a  ri<:lil  to  !»•- 
(|iiir«'  a  coninKMi   carrier  to  transpoit   liini  or  his  propciiv 


uitliout  ('liai'<^c  and  at  liis  own  risk 


And  I 


can  conceive  no 


|e<i!il  olijecti(tn  to  a  contract  I'airlv  and  distincti\  made.  I»e- 
Iween  a  common  <'arriei'  and  a  passenjjs'cr  who  pays  no  Fai'e, 
that  the  latter  shall  lake  iii>  own  ri>l\  in  icspect  to  tiiencirli- 
^once  of  sulxirdinate  au'cnts  oi"  servants  in  th<>ir  appropri- 
ate sphere.  And  this  is  all  \\r  meant  to  decide  in  the  case 
of  Welles.  No  man  wh(»  |»avs  his  fare  will  he  likely  to 
make  such  a  <-ontract,  or  voluntarily  to  relin(|uisli  any  sate- 
;.fuard  for  his  personal  security, 

"III  this  ease  the  plaintiff's  husl)and  made  and  si<rned\vith 
his  own  hand  an  e.\pre.»s  contract ,  in  which  it  is  stipulated 
that  the  persons  ridiiiir  fice  on  the  defendants'  road  to  take 
char^i'e  of  stock,  do  so  at  their  own  risk  of  personal  injury 
from  whatever  cause.  And  he  also  received  from  the  dt'- 
fendants'  aiienls,  at  the  same  time,  a  ticket  with  an  indorse- 
ment thereon,  statin<r  that  tin-  person  receivinir  the  same 
assuuH'd  all  the  risk  of  accidents,  and  expressly  ajrrcedthat 
the  eom|(any  should  not  he  liable  under  any  cin-umstances, 
hether  of  neiiiiu'euci^  or  otln-rwise,  for  any  injury  to  tl 


w 


U! 


person. 


In 


'Ucji   a    c;i>e 


I 


i'onceive   that  there   is   no   lia- 


hility  on  the  part  id"  tlu-  <U'fendants,  except  such  as  would 
exist  hetween  two  private  persons  when  one  undertook  to 
carry  tlu'  other  jiratuitously  fioia  one  place  to  another,  for 
th<>  personal  accommodation  or  pleasure  of  the  latter.  'I  he 
defendants  would  not  !»<•  sul)jcct  to  the  rcsponsiliilities  of 
common  carriers,  hut  would  l)e  lialile  simply  as  Itaih'es,  ms 
in  tlu'  case  of  a  nakeil  depositary  without  reward,  or  a  man- 
datary, who  are  only  responsihle  for  untss  or  cul[)al)le  iiej;- 
Icct.  Ill  this  view  of  the  defendants'  responsil)ili|y,  in 
either  aspect  of  llu'  case,  I  lind  no  dilliculty  in  sustaining' 
the  verdict.      The  jury   have    found   that    the  case  was  one 


of  i^ross  iu'uiijii'uce,  and  this  jiidss  nciilip-nce  was  the  iie^- 
lij:encc  of  the  principal,  in  the  employment  of  the  wry 
careless,  iiu-oinpeteiit  and  .»tupid,  if  not  drunken,  switch- 


w 


t. 


ao4 


TIIK  CONTUACTS  OK  CAIMMKIiS. 


[(•II.   IX. 


I    '} 


t   '»■■ 


nm 


miin,  wlioso  li('(>(ll»'ssn('ss  ciiuscd  the  collision  of  the  IriiiiiH 
wliicli  i)r()(lii('«'(l  llic  (Icalli  of  the  i>l!iinliff's  liiisliaiid.  Siicli, 
doubtless,  was  or  may  have  been  the  opinion  of  tlic  juiy 
and  the  irrounds  of  their  verdict.  On  these  groumis  I  think 
it  entirely  correct  and  propc'r. 

*'  In  the  case  of  HWA',s  /•.  Xi'ir  Y'^or/c  Vfiitral  Itiiifrixul 
Conipnur/,''^  there  was  no  such  proof,  and  no  evidence  showinj; 
how  the  <-ollision  happen(>d  :  nor  any  evidence  th.-it  would 
warrant  a  jury  in  tindingthat  any  particular  person,  ajxent  or 
servant,  whose  negliirence  caused  the  injury,  was  unlit  for  his 
place,  or  that  any  ne«rlij;ence  had  heeii  conmiitted  hy  the  de- 
fendants in  their  seluMiie  or  direction  for  the  runnin*;  of  the 
trains,  or  in  the  einployiniMit  of  any  of  their  agents  or  ser- 
vants. It  was  stipulated  in  the  case  hy  the  attorneys,  that 
the  injuries  were  occasioned  hy  the  carelessness  and  negli- 
gence of  the  servants  and  agents  of  the  defendants  in 
charge  of  the  two  trains  at  the  time  of  the  collision.  TIh; 
express  agr<'«'ment  of  Welles,  in  that  <'ase,  extended  to, 
and  was  oI)vious|y  dcsignecl  to  covei'  and  embrace,  the  risks 
which  would  iiltend,  and  the  casiiallies  which  might  n'sult 
from  the  negligence  of  just  this  class  of  snhoinlinatc  ser- 
vants and  agents,  and  where  there  was  no  f.'iult  or  iiegligcnc*! 
on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  as  pi-o|)rielors  of  the  rail- 
road, in  jiroviding,  to  the  utmost  extent  of  care  and  dili- 
gence on  their  part,  to  prevent  such  casually.  I'pon  this 
discrimination  between  the  acts  of  the  principal  and  the 
agent,  I  think  that  th(>  case  of  Welles  was  rightly  decided  ; 
although  some  expres.sions  in  the  opinion  may  recpiire  (pial- 
ilication.  And  that  the  verdict  in  this  case  can  be  sustainetl 
without  involving  any  inconsistency  Ix'tween  the  two  cases. 
I  coiu'ur,  therefore,  in  the  decision  that  a  now  trial  be  (ho- 
nied." 

But  th(^  judgment  of   the  Supreme  Court  was  reversed 

by  a  majority  of  the  judges  of  the  (-onrt  of  Appeals  where 

the  case    was    taken    on  appeal.     (i()i;i,i),  Skldkn,  Smith, 

Daviks  and  Aij.kn,.IJ.,  voting  for  reversal,  Dkmo,  C.  J., 

«'  •2(^  Harlt.  041  (isr/.*). 


CII.  IX.  J 


CONSIDERATION. 


30r) 


.1., 


Wright  iiiid  Sutherland,  J.  J.  dissenting,  and  delivering 
liic  following  (H)ini()ns. 

Gould,  .1. :    "It    is   fully  concedod  that    in   this  court 
there  is  n»)  (juostion  thiit  the  contriict   for  carrving  the  cat- 
tle at  reduced  rates,  in  consideration  that  the  owner  assume 
certain    risks  as  to  them,  is  a  valid  contract.      And   this 
<'ourt "-' has  this  year  decided  that  a  contract  by  a  passen- 
ger   to  take  the   risk  of  injury  to  his  person  in  consider- 
ation   of   riding   free,   is   a    valid    contract.      In   the   ease 
before  us,  the  ticket  upon  which  the  deceased  was  riding  is 
a  free  ticki^t,  a  pass  without  paying.     And  in  consideration 
thereof,  the  jjassengcr  assumed  all   risks,  etc.     The   same 
person    at    the    same  time  made  another  contract,   that   in 
<'onsidcration  of  the  carrying  of  his  cattle  at  reduced  rates, 
he  assumed  certain  risks  in  regard  to  them  ;  and  in  that  con- 
tract   he  provided  that  tlu^  person  ridiiig  free  to  take  eare 
of  tlie  cattle  should  assume  certain  risks.     Calling  these  two 
<'()ntracts  together  one  contract   makes  no  difference  with 
the  reason  of  the  ruling  applicable  to  each  of  them  separ- 
ately.      Do    contracts  of    whi(;h  each    separately   is  good 
become  invalid  because  combined  or  contained  in  one  instru- 
ment.    Is  a    passenger's  contract  to  assume  risks  on  one 
consideration,   (riding  free)  good;    but  bad  when  you  add 
the  other  consideration — that  his  cattle  are  carried  at  a  re- 
duced price?     FiM'ther,  if  he  may  make  a  contract  by  which 
he  shall  ride  free,  may  he  not  by  contract  say   that  he  is 
riding  free,  although  he  has  paid  for  the  transportation  of 
his  goods?     How  has  the  court   any  right  to  alter  his  con- 
tract, and  say  that  he  is  not  riding  free.     Again,  if  he  may 
by  contract  assume  certain  risks,  in  consideration  of  riding 
free,  why  may  he  not  make  a  contract  to  assume  the  same 
risks,  in  consideration  of  being  carried  at  half  price,  as  he 
does  for  his  stock?     When  wc  once  hold  that  assuming  these 
risks  is  within  his  power  as  matter  of  contract,  the  court 
has  no  power  to  interfere  with  his  contract  on  the  score  of 

«-'  Wells  V.  N.'w  York  Cent.  K.Co,-24  X  Y.  ISl  (1SG2) ;  r.'ikiiis  v.  N'w 
Y..rkHViit.  H.  Co..  '.M  X.  Y.  IIH!  (18(32). 
20 


n 


.     f 


I 


306 


TUK  CONTUA(  T8  OF  CA!:ilIEU8. 


[CH.   IX. 


;i*» 


■  :;: 


rr 


^i: 


:)'i 


r 


■ii ' 


m 


t/uautum  at  consldcnilion,  or  on  anyirrouiid  l)ut  illcj^'ulity  of 
considrialion.  Tlir  judfrmciit  of  the  Suprcnic  Court  should 
Im'  rovcrst'd,  and  a  new  trial  ordcrod," 

Skldkn,  J.  :  "  Tlu' follo\vin«j  positions  appear  to  l»e  set- 
tled in  re>raril  to  the  duties  and  I'espoiisihilities  of  railroad 
corporations  enjfa<;ed  in  tin-  transportation  of  pers(tn>  and 
j)roperty  in  this  State  : 

"1.  In  I'cjj^ard  to  the  transportation  of  <i;oods,  they  are  >nl)- 
jeet  to  the  altsolute  respoiisihijily  whifh  rests  upon  eonMnoii 
carriers,  and  an',  then''  re,  insurers  of  the  safe  carriaif'  and 
delivery  of  the  jroods,  ,  \cepl  a<;ainst  accidents  to\vard>  the 
production  of  which  no  human  a<;ency  has  <(>ntril)uted. 

"  2.  In  t!ie  transportation  of  livinj.'  animals,  they  are  re- 
lieved from  responsil)ility  for  such  injuiit-'  as  occur  in  c(»n- 
setjuence  of  the  vitality  of  the  f rciirht ,  -<>  far  as  such  in- 
jury e(>uld  not  hy  the  exercise  of  dili<.fence  and  care  lu'  pn  - 
vented;  in  other  resp«'<'ts,  their  respon.sihiliiy  in  re;rard  to 
stock  is  the  same  which  rests  upon  them  in  re«;ard  to  jrood.^.'"' 
"  3.  In  rej;ardtot hi- transportation  of  passenjzers,  they  arc 
n(»t  in  any  respect  insuiuM's,  hut  ar»  an»\v«'ral»lc  for  anv  in- 
juries t(»  their  passen<r<'rs  a«j;ainst  which  the  utmost  skill 
and  f(»resi<rht  could  fruard.'"^ 

"  4.  This  responsibility  end)races  not  only  any  w  ant  of  care 
and  foresij^lit  on  the  part  of  the  imnu'diatt-  a;r<'nl>  of  the 
corporation,  hut  also  any  defects  arisin^j^  from  want  tif  care 
or  skill  in  the  manufacturers  of  the  machinery  or  materials 
used  in  the  structure  (U*  opt'rati(»n  of  the;  road,  whcthei-  dis- 
«overal)le  liy  any  exercise  of  care  and  skill  on  tlu'  part  of 
the  innnediate  ajrents  of  the  roatl  or  not . '■^ 

"  5.  The  companies  can  not  limit  their  resj)onsil»ility  I»y  anv 
notice,  though  expressly  hrouirht  to  the  knowled^jfe  of  those 
whose  persons  or  whose  property  tln'V  carry  ;  l)ut  they  nniy 
secure  such  limitation  by  exprc  ->  contract  with  those  per- 

*'  ("liu-kc  V.  lloclicni.Ti^c.  It.  ('...,  14  N.  Y.  .">70  ns.-.(l). 
•■'  liowi'ii  V.  Now  Yiiik  Cfiit.  H.  Co..  is  \.  Y.  His  (l.s.VS). 
"■■  IIi'},'fiiiaii  V.  Wfstcni  |{.  Cii..  i;t  X.  Y.  '  (  Is.m^. 
"■  Dorr  V.  New  .Iciscy  Slcaiii  Nav.  Co.  4  .Saiidf.  i:{()  (IS.V)), 


iJt 


rir.  IX.] 


CON8inKHVTION. 


307 


"  (!.  Such  liinilation  nmy  lu' iifrivcd  upon  in  rrl.ition  to  tlie 
safely  of  pntpcrty  under  any  cireuiustimres,  wliether  car- 
ried ;.M-aluit(tusly  or  for  reward  ;  and  in  relation  lo  (lie  >afe(y 
of  persons  when  they  are  carried  ;rratuitouslv.''' 

•'  7.  In  such  contracts  the  cunipanii-s  may  lawl'iillv  in-  re- 
lieved from  all  responsihility  f(tr  tlu' MeMli«rcnee  or  iniscoii- 
diict  of  their  sulionlinale  servants  and  aiicnts  ;  the  (pu-stion 
lieintr  a>  yv{  iinsi'ttled  what  servants  ora'fenis,  if  anv,  are  to 
he  reirarded  as  so  directly  represi-ntinj;  the  coni|»any  that  a 
contract  it'lievin<;  the  company  from  re>p()nsil)ilil v  foi' their 
ncirliirencc  or  misconduct  may  n(»t  law  rully  he  made. 

"  M.  AVhenever  the  conii)anies  are  authori/.<'d  to  relieve 
ihemx'lvcs  l»y  crmtract  from  lialtility  foi-  tiie  neiilijrenee  of 
their  airenl-^,  no  distinction  is  made  in  re<rard  to  tiie  dc'^rees 
»d'  ne;:li,ireni'e  airainsi  which  they  may  >tipulate.'^ 

"The  tpiestions  which  arise  in  this  case  are: 

"  1.  I>id  the  <i»ntract  on  which  Mr.  Hissell  was  traveli;i<r 
when  the  accident  occurred,  in  its  term-;  tlirow  upon  him  tlie 
risk  of  personal  injury  from  such  circumstauecs  as  eausi-d 
lii-  death? 

"  L*.  If  the  contract  embracod  such  a  ease,  was  it  valid  and 
hindinii? 

•'  In  reirai'd  to  the  lirst  (|Uc>tion,  I  thinU  he  must  he.  I'e- 
irarih'd  as  tr.ivelinj;  i»y  virtue  as  well  of  the  ticket  as  of  th(^ 
c(»ntra<'.  They  wei'c  hoth  delivered  at  one  time,  and  to- 
uetlier  (institute  the  contract.  Kach  may  i)e  referred  to  in 
arrivinjr  at  the  terms  of  the  whole  contract,  which  was,  in 
effect,  liul  one  and  not  two.  That  which  is  called  the  ticket 
was  a  part  of  the  contract  which  Bissell  mi;.dit  or  miulit 
not  hav  •  entered  into.  The  effect  of  it  was  to  jxive  him 
the  privilci/e  of  riding"  on  the  stock  train,  or  on  th(^ 
passenirer  train,  at  pleasure:  and  when  he  made  that  a 
part  of  the  contract,  he  was  hound  l)y  all  its  terms,  as 
wi'll  as  the  company.     Thc^   conditions  as  to  personal   risk. 


.    / 


'••■  W('ll>  v.  N';'\v  Y.irk  ('.'111.    |{.  i'n..-2\    V.  Y.  ISl    (lS(i2) ;   fcrkins  v. 
\'  w  Y..rk  Cent.  I{.  ('....  24  N.  Y.  lit?  (ISCJ). 
*   Wells  V.  S.cam  Nav.  Co..  S  N.  Y.  :',::>  (,ls.-.:i). 


•-■^iS 


^H. 

r 

i 

^Bi 

* 

'« 

^^3' 

1 

m  ■ 

, 

>l».  ff : 

! 

r  '3i  s  > 

' 

1 

« 

^  i 

i; 

'■'  ff ' 

H' 

t 

'■      1 

.      3, 

1 

J 

H 

:     -,^,   ; 

'V  '■ 

rh; 

*, 

j 

ii 

^  ■;' 

T  1 

U- 

-:tr 

M"'"'- 

'  ■■ 

M^ 

« 

m 

'  ■  i-  i^ 

V 

'p_-w .    . 

L...SI 

II. 

308 


THR  CONTRACTS  OP  CAKItlKllS. 


[CII.   IX. 


uiulcr  llio  lioad  of  '  in)ti<'(','  on  (liiit  fitkct,  arc  not  contint'il 
to  .sncli  risk  wlirn  ridinjjf  on  tin*  pasMrn^ior  train,  luit  fx- 
t(*n(l  to  all  piM'Honal  risks  when  ri<lin<;  on  any  train,  under 
the  conlrael,  trealinj;  it  as  one.  The  hin;ruaf,M'  is,  'the 
owner  of  stock  rcceivin<r  this  ticket  assumes  all  risk  of 
accident  ;'  and  thai  risk  as  stated  citvei-  all  injui'V  to  stock 
or  person,  without  reference  to  the  train  l»y  wliich  the  pci'- 
son  should  he  carried.  I  dd  not,  however,  repird  this  as 
material,  because  the  terms  (tf  the  other  p<»ition  of  the 
contract  appear  to  nic  ecjually  l»road.  The  i'xpression  •  at 
their  own  risk  of  personal  injury  from  whatever  cause,'  in 
connection  with  the  other  woi'ds  of  the  cont  I'act ,  can  not  he 
held  to  exclude  any  injury  which  the  party  mi^^ht  receive, 
however  oc<'asione(l,  while  ridin^r  or  actini;  inider  the  con- 
tiiict,  ami  a^'ainst  whi<h  the  company  had  a  ri<j;ht  to  protect 
itself  hy  contract. 

*'  The  remainiuir  <|ueslion  is,  was  the  contract  valid? 

"  And  first,  was  liissell  '  ridiiy  free  to  take  char<;e  of  the 
stock,'  within  the  meaninjr  of  those  terms  as  used  in  th« 
contract?  It  is  not  <lainie(l  that  In-  paid  anythini;  for  his 
l)assa<re,  aside  fnnn  the  $70  p<'r  cai"-load  which  he  paid  for 
carryini,'  the  cattle.  Hi;  was,  therefore,  doinj.'  exactly  what 
the  parties  intended  when  they  used  the  terms  '  ridinj;  free,' 
and  was  hound  hy  the  contract  to  ride  at  his  own  lisk  as  to 
person.al  injury.  So  far  as  the  parties  to  tin'  contract  were 
concerned,  he  was  '  ridinjr  free  ;'  whether,  in  view  of  the 
hiw,  he  w;is  <-arrie<l  hy  the  «'ompany  irratuitously.  so  as  to 
authorize  the  company  to  relieve  themselves  from  the  con- 
sc(pienccs  of  ne;rli<;encc  in  his  tiansportati<»n,  if  their  powei* 
to  do  so  was  limited  to  p:issen<.''ers  thus  ciriied,  is  another 
(|U(!stion.  If  it  were  mu-essary  to  decide  that  ipiestion.  I 
am  not  prepared  now  to  say  what  my  conclusion  would  he. 
liut  I  do  not  rcirai'd  it  as  nci-cssarv.  The  principle  hcinir 
estahlished  that  railroads  may  l>y  contract  relieve  tliem- 
.selves  from  tht,'  nejrliirence  of  their  scrv.ants  in  the  earryinji' 
of  passenircrs  when  carried  irratuitously,  I  can  discover  no 
rule  of  law  oi  public  policy  to  prevent  their  doin;^  it  on  any 


en.  IX.] 


C'ONNIDKItATKIN. 


m) 


oilier  tcnii.N  \vlii«'li  iii:iy  lie  Mtrrcc*!  ii[i()ii  lu-lwriii  (hcin  atul 
(lirir  passciipTs,  Mild  \vlii<li  siiuH  furnish  n  cniis'ulcnitioM  l<> 
the  |(Usscn;r»Ts  for  llic  ri>k  wliidi  iIicn  ;i»uiiu'. 

'•  All  tlif  )iruiiiii»'iil>  \s  liicli  liiivc  hfcii  u!j:»'(|  a^'iiiiisi  tjic  pro- 
piifty  1111(1  .-jilcty  of  nllowiii^r  fai'rlns  to  niiikf  micIi  coii- 
li;u  t>,  iipply  \\illi  ii>«  mil  li  foi'fc  to  cii-i  ■^  wliiic  p;i>>cii<;fr« 
MIC  liirritMl  jirMtuitoiisly  ms  uhcic  iln-y  iirc  cMirii'd  for  rc- 
\\Mi(i.  So  far  M>  tlif  |iiililit'  Mff  ciHiii  rued,  ihr  (|ii('>lioii  of 
reward  i>  one  of  indifference  :  and  so  far  as  iiu'  pai'ties  are 
eoneerned,  if  liny  are  allowed  to  iiiai<e  'lie  eonlrael  al  all, 
liny  are  llie  jud^res  of  the  :inionnl  of  >  <in>idrration  which 
will  e(»inpen.-ale  them  for  a>>tiniliiL'  the  ii>l\,  whether  the 
whole  fare,  or  half,  or  an  eiuhth  or  ai.\  other  proporlioii, 
or  other  c(Mi>idciation.  I  apprehend  it  i->  entirely  sat'e  to 
lea\t'  them  to  li\  iIk'  teiins.  I  refer,  of  conr.-e,  lo  actual 
eoiilraels,  and  not  to  allempled  limitation-,  of  the  carriers' 
respoiisiltility.  Iiy  iiiean>  of  iiiilors(  inen!>  upon  lickels, 
not  assented  to  liy  the  pas-eiip  rs  who  receive  them. 
If  there  wa>  no  liniitalion  to  the  power  n['  railroad  com- 
paiiio  in  iiiakinLT  siieli  eonlrael.-.  (here  would  l)e  ureal  dan- 
irer  (d'  pijlilie  inconvenience  in  the  estal)li>linient  cd'  sinh 
rule  :  Init  extn  then,  after  lindiiiir  ihe  law  to  lie  settled  that 
such  eo!ii|ianies  c(»ul(l  pi'oteei  ihemselve>  auaiiist  lialiilily 
liy  expre'«-<  coiitrat't,  I  should  (loiihi  the  propriety  (»f  at- 
leiuplin;,'  l(»  presi'ril)e,  Ity  judicial  deci>ioii,  how  ^^reat  the 
eoiisideralion  should  he  to  render  such  contracts  valid. 

"'I'lie  leirislaliire.  however,  ha-  not  left  the  matter  at 
larj^e,  hut  ha-  prol»al»ly  done  all  which  i>  re(|uii'ed  for  llm 
protection  of  the  piddic  or  (d'  individuals  in  this  re- 
spect. h\  ii'iiardin^f  tiiein  apiiiist  the  nece>>ily  of  ne^oliatini? 
with  anv  railroad  company  on  this  snltjcct.  On  the  offi'r 
l»v  a  passeiiLrer  of  the  fare  pre-crilied  liy  law  .  the  <-ompaiiy 
is  hound  to  transport  him.  and  to  as>iiinc  all  the  risks  which 
fall  within  the  appropriately  stiin;^eni  rules  ahove  adverted 
to;  and  in  ca-c  nf  rcd'iisal.  •uch  company  is  made  lial)le  for 
all  damages  resulting-  from  such  r«d"u;-al.  Ihil  if  any  one 
who   wisho  to  travel  with  ucreater  economy  than  hy  payinir 


ih 


n 
i 

Ml 


810 


THK  CONTHACTS  OF  CAUKIKKS. 


[CU.   IX. 


); 


?i 


tlio  f:ire  wliicli  the  lojiishiturc  has  prcscrihod  (or  hi  the  ah- 
Honco  of  U'lijishitioii  which  usairo  has  cstahlishcd),  as  the  rca- 
sonahh'  coiiipciisatioii  for  the  transportation  aiul  risk,  iiiid 
prt^fors  to  pay  h-ss  or  to  pay  nothiiius  and  to  assume  the 
risk  himself,  I  do  not  think  then'  is  cither  danii;cr  or  impro- 
priety in  aliowinu,'  it  to  l)c  (h)nc  ;  and  tiicrc  is  no  principh' 
upon  which  my  mind  can  rest  to  justify  the  position  that 
courts  siiall  recognize  such  a  contract  as  valid,  wiien  the 
eompj'ny,  in  consideration  (»f  the  passenirer's  assuniinjr  the 
ri.^k,  a;>;rees  to  carry  su<'h  passen<j:er  without  fare,  and  (h'- 
elare  it  void,  when,  i'oi"  the  same  ('onsith-ration,  the  com- 
pany ai^rc'cd  to  cai'i'v  him  for  lialf  fare.  The  two  cents  a 
mile  which  the  defendant  is  aUowed  l»y  hiw  to  char^jfe  for 
carryi»iif  way  passenjrers,  and  thre«'  cents  a  mile  for  otlier 
passei.'<f(M"s,  is  what  tiic  hiw  adjudu:es  in  the  altsence  of 
usa<;e  lixinjjj  a  h'ss  sum,  to  l>c  a  reasonalih-  compensation 
for  the  expense  of  cairyinj;  the  passeniicr,  inchidimr  tiie 
risk  imposed  by  hiw,  of  iiis  (pialitied  insurance  ajxainsi  in- 
jury. To  hold  that  the  defendant  and  the  passt'njrer  may 
lawfully  airrcc  that  the  former  shall  l»c  I'clicved  from  the 
risk  and  the  latter  assume  it,  ant'  then  to  add  that  no  such 
Hureenient  shall  he  valid  unless  the  defendant  ijrives  to  the 
pas,sen^'(!r  for  assuminuthe  risk  the  full  compcnsiition  which 
the  law  allows  it  t(t  receive  feu-  risk  and  transportation 
uniti^d,  would  not  seem  to  Ih'  rcasoualjlc.  I  should  i-eirard 
it  as  far  more  rational  to  deny  to  the  parties  all  power  to 
contract  on  ilic  sulijcct. 

"Like  all  contr.icts,  to  lender  such  a  one  valid  it  is  indis- 
p(Uisiil)l(^  that  it  have  some  considcialion  which  it  would  not 
have  if  tin;  passcn^'cr  paid  the  full  fare  tixcd  l>y  law.  'IMial 
is  all  which  the  company  is  allowed  l(t  icccivc  foi'  the  ser- 
vice and  the  risk  united,  and  it  can  no  niorc  demand  the  full 
(compensation  of  'lolh  foi-  the  service  alone,  than  it  could 
demand  the  fare  foi'  a  hundi'e(l  miles  for  <arryin<i'  a  pas- 
senjfcr  fifty  miles.  If  the  service  is  reduced,  the  amount  of 
reward  must  lie  reduced  in  pi'opoition  ;  and  if  the  company 
is  r<diev«'d   fiom  the  lisk,  it   nui>l    make  compensation   for 


CII.  IX.] 


rONSIDKHATIOH. 


311 


tliiit  rolicf  by  tlio  rcduclion  of  fjirc  or  olliorwiso.  'jlic 
nmouiit  of  such  ('om|)i'iisiili(ni  liko  tlir  coiisidciation  for  ail 
iontracts,  must  lu>  left  to  (lie  aj^iTiMiiciit  of  thf  paitics. 
Tlu'  law  lias  wisely,  for  the  protection  of  passenjiciv-, 
truardcd  tlieui  airaiiist  any  necessity  foi-  neirotiatiou  on  tliis 
subject.  If  they  clio'xe  to  do  it  voluiilaiily,  I  can  discove? 
no  <rroun<l  for  sayinsjr  tiiat  tiicv  may  not  make  sucli  tonus  a? 
Ihc'V  ph'as(>.  I  entertain  no  douht,  tlierefore,  that  tiiis  con- 
tract in  liiis  ea-e  was  valid. 

"It  appears  fiom  th«' case  that  the  defendant's  superin- 
tendent testilii'd  on  the  trial  that  'the  price  <»f  fare  for 
♦•attic  frciirht  was  uniform,  all  our  rate.'  From  this 
it  has  heen  arjiued  hy  tin'  i)!aintiff's  counsel  that  Hissell 
was  neithei-  '  ridin;j:  free,'  nor  at  a  r<'duccd  rate  of  fare, 
at  the  time  of  the  accident.  1  have  alrea<ly  jriv'.'i  my  inter- 
j)retalion  of  the  contract  in  this  respett,  which  does  not  ue- 
coi'd  with  this  position;  hut  whether  such  interpretation  is 
(•orrect  «)r  not,  tlu-  position  of  the  counsel  can  not  he  made 
available  now,  it  not  havinj;  been  presented  on  tho  trial. 
The  trial  appears  to  have  proceeded  on  the  «;round  that  tho 
intestate  was  t ravelin;,'  on  a  free  ticket,  anil  that  tho  only 
(piestion  in  doul)t  was  whether  the  ne<ili;j:enee  of  the  de- 
fendant's a<rents  was  such  as  to  render  the  defendant  liable, 
notwitlistandiuir  the  intestate  was  »  ridjnj;  fvvv.  '  under  an 
<'n^a;.rement  on  his  part  so  to  ri<lc  '  at  his  own  risk  of  per- 
sonal injury  from  whatever  cause.'  If  he  in  fact  i)aid  as  u 
])assen;;er  the  full  fare  allovve<l  by  law,  or  the  usual  faro  if 
less  than  that  allowed  by  law,  without  reduction  on  aoeount 
4»f  his  «'Mira<fement  to  assume  such  risk,  in  my  opinion  the 
enirau'einent  would  i)e  without  cnns'iU'i'ation,  and  not  bind- 
inif  upon  him  or  his  rcpi'csentative.  That  (|uestion  will 
doubtlcN^  be  open  to  the  plaintiff  on  a  new  trial,  l>ul  as  it 
was  not  prcseiitfd  >o  far  as  the  case  sh()ws  at  the  form«'r 
trial.  It  <an  not  l»e  consjdere:!  here.  It  is  insisted  that  if 
the  contract  was  valid,  it  only  relieved  the  defendants  from 
responsibility  for  the  neLdi;.'eniM'  (»f  the  persons  havinir 
4'harLre  of  the  tiiiin  on  which  Misscll  \\asridin<f.     This  i>  a 


f' 


819 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  (  AU1UK15S. 


[(•II.   IX. 


i 


i 


I  .V.I 


more  (juostioii  of  iiilcrprctalion  of  tlic  conl/.ict.  'I'hc  (|U('s- 
tion  is,  wliiil  (lid  liu'  parties  iiiti'iul  hy  (he  words  which 
they  have  used?  'I'hc  luiiicip'c  l)ciii<f  cslalilishccl  liiat 
patties  may  lawfully  enter  into  contracts  of  this  na- 
tul■(^,  tluTc  is  no  limit  to  tlu-  «'xtcnt  and  variety  of 
inoditieation  which  nniy  l)i'  jriven  to  such  contracts.  The 
pa>senu:ei'  may  sissuine  all  risks  ai"isin<r  from  tin*  <'ondi- 
tion  of  the  track,  or  fioni  the  condition  of  the  locomotives 
or  of  the<'ars,or  all  risks  from  the  nei^liiicnce  of  the  aiicnt"^, 
of  all  of  them  or  of  any  class  of  them.  There  is  no  dnn- 
<r«'r  which  the  party  may  «'ncountcr,  i-esultini;'  from  the 
journey,  which  he  nniy  not  as>ume  tin-  responsihilily  of,  and 
lu'  may  assume  all  or  any  portion  of  it.  This  contract  in 
itself  exemplilies  all  this.  In  icirard  to  the  stock  tlu-  owner 
as.-\jmes  certain  dctined  ri>ks,  conlined  to  a  vei-y  narrow 
circle,  and  all  the  I'isks  heyond  '  jose  are  ^till  charj^ed  upon 
the  company.  ( )n  the  other  n  ;i<l,  with  I'eirard  to  his  '  own 
risk  (»f  p(>rsonal  injury,'  he  assunn-s  it  liy  woids  as  com- 
|)rehensive  as  the  lan^ruaiic  affords,  '  from  whatever  cause  ;' 
•ind  he  'expressly  airi'cesthat  the  company  shall  not  he  lialtle 
imder  any  circumstances,  whether  of  ne<ili;j:ence  liy  thcii' 
ajjfents  or  otherwise,  for  any  injury  to  the  pcr.xon.'  I  can 
ima<;ine  no  injury  which  the  passcnirer  could  re<(ive  as  the 
eonsecpn'uce  of  hi.s  jourui'V  a<;ainst  whi<'h  the  company  li;is 
power  to  protect  itself  hy  contract,  whi<'h  is  not  cmlnaced 
hy  these  terms  and  which  he  has  not  assumed.  The  terms 
of  the  conti'act  in  this  ease  supply  what  was  wantin;^  in  tin- 
ease  of  \\'i//s  r.  ,S(t'(iiu  Xoviifcifioit  Cinii/xnii/,''' {(\  exempt 
the  carrier  from  responsihility  for  the  neirlifrence  of  airents. 

'•The  .'With  section  nf  the  ;j'cn<ral  railioad  law  which  li;is 
alicady  l»een  adveitid  to.  liiis  hem  ndied  upon  as  estahiish- 
injf  the  defendant's  liahility  in  this  ease.  That  section  is  in 
tin-  followin<.r  woids  :  '  Kvi-rv  corporation  shall  start  and 
rmi  their  cars  for  the  transportation  of  passenirers  ami 
property  at  rcirular  tinn>,  to  he  lixed  l»y  puldic  noli<'e;  and 
>hall   furnish  sufiicient    accomnnidations  for  the  Iransporta- 

"'s  N.  V.  a::,  (iHM). 


II.   IX.] 


CONSIDKUATION. 


•m:\ 


lion  of  all  such  passciiircrs  and  propci'l y  as  sliall   witliiii  a 
ri'as(tiialilc  tiinc  iJicvioiis  llicri'to  lie  oft'crcil  for  traii>|iorta- 
tioii  at  llic  place  of   slarliiii!'  and  the  jinx'tions  of  othci'  rail- 
idads,  and  al  u>nal  sloppinir  place-  e>lal>lished  for  reeeivinLT 
and  discharLiinu'  way  p;issenirers  and  fi'ei;j^^lits  for  that  train  ; 
anti  >hall  take,  transport  and  discharge  >nch  passenti'ers  and 
property  at,  from  and  to  such  phices.  on  the  (hie  payment 
of  the  fi'cijrlit  or  fare  Iciially  authorized  therefor  :  aiul  >hall 
he   lial)h'   to  the  party  airurieved    in  an   action    for  damaiics 
for  any  neiileet    or  I'cfusal  in  the  premises."    'Ihi'  ari:ument 
hased   upon   tliis  statute   if  it    proves    anythiuL','   j  roves   too 
nmcli.      If  that  section  is  applical»le  to  tliis  ease  to  sustain 
the  po>ition  for  wiiieh  it  is  <'ited,  notwithstanding'  the  terms 
of  thecontraet  umh'r  whi<h  the  intestate  was  carried,  I  tlo  not 
seewiiy  it  would  not  render  railroad  companies  al)sohiti'ly 'lia- 
hle  to  the  partv  airiirieved  in  an  acticm  for  damai:'es  for  any 
neirlect  *  in  the   t I'ansport.ition   of  persons  or  proi)ei'ty.      It 
would    seem    to   inaUe  them    insurers  of   the  safety  of  pas- 
sen<;('i's,  as    thev   were    at    common    law    for   the  safety    of 
f reijrht ,  airainst  :dl  daniLi'crs  not    arisinjj:  from  the  act  of  (lod 
or  tin-   pulilie   enemies,  and   to  super-add  to  that  strinncnt 
rule  of   liahilitv  a   prohihition  airainst  the  moditication  of  it 
hy  contract.      Such  an  application  of  the  statute  would  show 
ail  the  decisions  (»f  this  court,  sustaiiiini:'  the  riiiht    of   rail- 
road companies  to  rciliiee  tli<-  extent  of  their  liahilitv  hy  ex- 
press contract ,  to   lia\('   lieeii  erroiieons.      Hut  if  the  statute 
should  receive  an  intcr|)retation  more  favorable  for  the  cur- 
riers, as  not   incrcasinii'  their  liahilily,  it    can  have  no  force 
in  support   of    the  aiuument    in  aid  (d'  which  it  is  invoke(l, 
unless  it  is  held   to  prohihil    contracts  hy  eaiM'iei's  reducini;" 
their   liahility  ;    which    woidd    render    it    e(|ually   in  coidlict 
with   the  decisions   hefore   mentioned.      The  true  ohject   of 
this  section   of  the  statute  has  as  it  appears  to  me  l»een  cor- 
rectly declai'e(|,    \i/...   '  to  hrinir  these  railroad   lines   within 
the  ireiiei'al   princi|(le  of  common  i-arricrs,   with  such   \aii- 
ations  as  the   nature  (d"  the  husiness  rei|uired."      I   d(>   not 
think  it  was  any  jtart   of  that  ohject  to  add  to  their  general 


''    n  -■■ 


814 


THK  CONTUACT8  OF  CAUKIBKS. 


[CH.  IX. 


respoiisihility  ns  ciirriiTs,  or  drprivo  them  of  tho  power 
which  they  possessed  prior  to  its  passajje  of  niiikinir  <'oii- 
traets  in  re<rar(l  to  sucli  liahility.  'I'here  are  several  exeep- 
tioiis  ill  the  ease  wiiieh  properly  ])reseiit  the  principal  points 
whieli  I  liave  «-onsi(h're(l,  and  which  are  well  taken.  The 
judjriiicnt  slioidd  l)e  reversed  and  a  new  trial  jrranted." 

Smith,  .1.  :  "  In  the  cases  of  We/is  r.  Xcir  Yorlc  Ci'uti'ol 
li'iilrniiil  CotiiiHini/''"  and  I'rrkius  r.  Xno  Ynrk  Ci'ii- 
trnl  lidih'iKiil  ( '(nii))(i,ni  '^  this  court  tleciiled — six  JikIltcs 
eoiiciirrinir — that  the  carriers  of  passen<xers  as  well  as 
other  comnion  carriers  iniirht  restrict  their  coiiiinon  law 
liaitility  l)v  express  contract.  In  each  of  these  <-a>es.  the 
passenj;<'r  was  ridiiiir  on  a  free  ticket.  In  this  case  in 
like  mannor,  the  plaintiff's  intestate  was  ridinir  ostensibly 
also  upon  a  similar  free  ticket.  I  do  not  see  nliy  this 
ease  is  not  precisely  within  the  rule  estahlislied  in  those 
onsos,  and  why  the  doctrine  of  stave  decisis  does  not  re(|uire 
IIS  to  revers(>  the  jiid;:'ment  in  this  case.  The  fact  that  tho 
plainti.'^f's  intestate  was  ridinir  in  defendant's  cars,  to  ac- 
com])any  his  stock  carried  as  freijfht,  and  for  which  the 
i'ustomary  charjr<'s  were  paid  and  received,  can  not  as  I  see 
affect  the  (|iiestion.  'I'lie  ticket  which  liissell  received,  and 
which  he  used  as  a  voucher  to  show  his  riirht  to  ride  in  a 
j)assoii<rer  car,  was  in  fad  a  free  ticket.  He  received  it  as 
n  free  tiek<'t.  Besides  tiic  indorsement  on  the  ticket,  he 
sisrued  an  express  aixreeinent,  in  which  he  c-niraired  to  take 
his  ri.sk  in  respect  to  all  accidents  or  injuries  to  his  person 
from  the  iieirlitreiice  of  defendant's  aurents,  or  whatever 
fauso.  The  arirmnent  that  the  rule  in  the  HV//.s-  and 
Perk'iiis  cases  can  not  :il>ply  in  this  case,  l)eeause  there  was 
ill  fact  a  consid.era1ion  received  iiy  the  defendant  for  tiie 
carriaire  of  the  plaintiff's  intestate,  is  not  !  !;>;  ik  sound. 
It  disre<jfards  the  force  of  the  ticket  whi  h  i'c  reeerv.d.  •  nd 
on  which  he  was  in  fact  ridini;'  at  the  time  <^i'  the  ;?'•.  idtsii , 
and  which  he  received  and  used    i-  a  free  :i  !«!'t,  .iid   lor 

■"•J I  \.  Y.  isi  (ISOJ). 
•»2»  X.  Y.  IIH;  (IS()2). 


Wf^f 


iWKm 


cn.  IX.] 


CONSIDKHATFOX. 


3i:> 


which  he  professedly  paid  no  fare  sepai-ately  fi'oin  the  price 
paid  for  the  transportation  of  his  stoeii.  Hut  it  is  undouhl- 
edly  true  that  he  received  such  free  ticket,  and  it  was  <riven 
him  l)V  tlie  defendants  in  consi(h'ration  of  the  business  and 
protits  i-eceived  from  him  fiom  tlie  frei^^ht  of  the  stock 
whicli  lie  accompanied.  So,  in  all  eases  when  free  tickets 
are  iriven,  I  suppose  there  is  some  coiisicU'ration  of  interest, 
or  protil  or  advanta_<re,  receiv«'d  oi-  expected,  whieh  consti- 
tutes the  inducement  to  the  liivinir  <>t"  the  ticket.  In  this 
sense,  there  would  prol)ai!!y  seldom  if  ever  he  j^iven  l»y  si 
railroad  company  a  strictly  free  ticket.  Nor  does  the  lia- 
l)ility  of  the  carriers  depend  upon  the  tpieslion  whether  he 
received  any  actual  pecuniary  or  other  consideration  for  the 
transportation  of  a  i)erson  over  their  road.  Koceiv'fng  a 
passeuirer  into  their  cars  for  transportation,  hinds  the  <'iir- 
riers  to  carry  him  safely — as  nuu-h  so  with  a  passenirer  who 
his  paid  no  fare  as  with  one  who  has  ])aid  full  fare  and  pur- 
chased the  customary  ticket  ;  and  subjects  them  to  an  ac- 
tion for  dania^res  for  any  injury  result in<r  from  the  nejjfli- 
geiiee  of  themselves  or  their  servants  and  agents.  The  ex- 
emption from  such  liability  rests  solely  upon  the  j^round  of 
express  contract.  The  fact  that  Wells  and  Perkins,  in  tlu' 
cases  referred  to,  applied  for  and  received  respectively  a 
free  pass,  was  doubtless  the  I'eason  why  the}'  UKuie  the 
agreement  to  take  their  own  risks.  The  coinpanv  for  the 
same  reason  made  that  a  condition  of  givinir  them  a  free 
piis.s.  It  could  not  have  made  or  imposed  any  such  terms 
or  conditions  upon  a  person  payini;  his  fare  ;  for  upor,  the 
payment  of  th(>  customary  fare,  they  were  bound  to  <  arry 
such  passenucr  at  theii'  own  risk  in  respect  to  all  injuries  re- 
sultiii^f  from  i\\v  negli},a'iiee  of  tl)e  coinpuny,  ih  iigtMits  or 
.servants. 

'*  It  can  not  \w  material  us  T  conceive,  whether  a  person 
who  ree(>ives  a  free  pass  u|i(|  iifrrees  to  take  his  own  i-isk  of  ac- 
cidents, and  to  become  in  effect  his  own  insurer  a<rainst  tjie 
casualties  of  tlie  trip,  receive  such  free  jic)<(;(  (o  enable  him 
to  acc<)nij)any  his  pi-upcrty,  or  for  any  other  i'Oifsqjj  a\:  voh- 


% 


aiG 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  CAKIUKUS. 


[ni.   IX. 


- 1 


^i*..' 


El'' 


t..n 


.sidcralion.  If  he  lakes  the  free  ticket  and  assents  to  the 
airreenienl  iudoised  thereon,  ordtlierwise  expicssly  aj^rees  to 
take  liis  own  risk,  lie  must  in  either  eas(3  aiiide  \)y  his  eon- 
trad,  and  is  Itonnd  then>l)y. 

"  In  the  (h'cision  (d'  this  cax'  at  the  i:enerai  term  of  the  Su- 
prein»'  ("onrt,  I  expressed  the  opinion  thai  tiie  action  coidd 
lie  sustained  on  the  i^roinid  that  the  iie;^lii:('nce  of  tlie  brake- 
man  was  the  nciiliiicuce  (d  the  corpoiation,  for  the  reason 
tliat  he  was  impi'opcilv  eniph)V«'d.  and  was  unlit  for  his  sta- 
tion. This  \iew,  I  am  >alislie(l.  was  erioncous.  TJic  case 
was  not  tried  upon  ihi^  iheorv.  1  think  liic  jiidL^mcnl 
sliouhl  lie  rcNci'scd,  and  a  new  Irial  irranted,  uilh  co>ls  |(» 
al»ide  the  evi-nl." 

1)i;m»),  ('.  J.,  (hssenlinir:  "  We  liave  airea<ly  dccidi  d 
tiiat  a  raih'oad  cor|ioration  may  hiwlidly  aiiree  with  a  pa>- 
senirer  who  is  carried  jjfratuittiusly  in  it--  cais.thal  it  will  i!n| 
i»c  res[)ousil)le  foi'  injuries  resnltini:  from  ihc  nc'_diircn<r  of 
its  servants,'-'  If  liie  piainlifT's  inie>tale  in  llic  prc-^t  nl  casi* 
was  hy  ajrreemenl  t(»  lie  cairicd,  and  was  in  fact  c.-irried  Itv 
the  defendants,  wiioliy  willi(tut  compcii-alion,  liie  judj^nieiit 
rcfeiMcd  to  is  a  pi'cccdcnt  for  the  dciision  of  the  appeal  now 
nndi  I'  consideration,  and  the  judiiinent  appcalcti  from  onL!hi 
to  l)e  i-e\cr>.cd.  Uut  I  do  not  coii^idt  r  the  dtccii-cd  in  this 
case  to  iiavc  liccn  a  free  pas^ciiLfci',  in  an\  proper  sen-e, 
The  tii'm  (d'  wiiich  he  was  m  menilier  coni  racted  uilh  the 
company  for  hi>  passau't'  hy  the  wrillcn  a;^rcemenl  u  liicli 
was  iriven  in  evidence.  That  aL'reenn'nl  cojitainctl  mu- 
tual sti[)ulalions  l)\  eacli  of  ihe  cont r.ictinir  parlie>.  ( )n 
the  pail  of  Ihe  company,  the  coniiMet  wa>  t(»  tiiili-porl  cef. 
tain  live  stock  lielonuini:  to  ihe  d(  ica-cd  and  his  par!  iter ,  :ind 
also  to  carry  the  mcud»ers  (d'  I  lie  lirm  or  such  other  person-^ 
a- the  liiin  sjioidd  eniplov  to  i:ii^(  cliari:c  (d' llie  lock  durinL"" 
the  transit,  for  a  specilied  ((mipensalion,  namely,  seventy 
dollars  f(U' each  cat  load  of  ihe  calllc.  which  ^um  the  con- 
tract ol»liired  tiie  tirm  to  p.  v  :   and  the   coiili-.c!    to   pa\   that 


»-ompensalion    was    the    ei|iu\ah'nl    for    the 


w 


lioi 


e     >er\ ice 


I'l  rl-iii-  \.  NiA   ^■"^!.  (••iH.  I!.  C  ...  'JIN.  V.  I»7  (|s<l 


'^ 


CH.  IX.] 


CONSinEIlATION. 


317 


which  tho  coiniJiinv  Iiad  uiidt'i-takcn  on  its  part  to  porfonii. 
If  tlicro  hud  boon  no  olhor  stiptdation  in  tho  writton  a<;ror- 
nicnt,  no  ono  conld  donid  that  tiio  pric<>  of  tho  pa.ssa<;o  of 
the  porson  ridinj;  to  take  ciiariic  of  the  stock  was  cniltraccd 
in   lh(!   aniounl   to  l)o  paid  liy  liu-  lirni.     It   coidd    not   l)o 
dctorndnod    wiiat    i)ortion    of   the    seventy   iloihiis    per  car 
load  of   cattle    was  the   e(|uivah'nt    for    the    transportation 
of   tho    property,    noi'    what    part   (d"    it    w<'nt    to    pay    for 
<'arriaj;e  of  the  person  in  charire  ;    liut  it  wouhl  l»e  entirelv 
<'lear  that  llie  wlioie  of  the   money  paid  l»y  th(!  lii'in  was  the 
(•oinp(Misation   for  ail    the  >er\  ices   whicii  the  railmad  eoni- 
panv    were    to    peforni.      lint    the   contraet    also    contained 
slipnlidions  that  the  owners  of    the  cattle  were  to  take  cer- 
tain I'isks  respect  injj:  I  hem  npon  thoniMi'lvo.s,  some  of  which 
risks    wonid   proltahly  have    otherwise    devohcd    npon   tho 
company  ;     Inil    with    llios<'    we    have    no  pre.-ent  concern. 
'I'liero  was,  however,  a  stipnialion  in  these  terms,  that    'tho 
persons  ridin;i  fi'oo  to  take  charp-  of  the  >tock  do  so  at  tln-ir 
own  risk  of  personal   injnrv,  from  whatever  eaus*  ,    and  it 
is  stated  in   the  instrument    in  effect    that   :i  smuiler  '(im- 
pensation  was  receivc(|  l)y  the  company,  on  accoiiwt  of  the 
lls^4UtMptioM  of  the  risks  mentioned,  than  that    Hlii«h  \v<Mdd 
liaAc  l)een  rc(|nire(l  if  they  had  not  .assumed  these  risk^.     I 
do  not  pei'ceive  that  the  porlion>  of  the  contract    which  n-- 
late  io  llio  risks  affect  its  construction  Up-'M  the  point  under 
inimodi:de    consideration  ;     namely,    in     determininjf    what 
stipulations  on  th«'  part  of  one  of  the  parties  are  the  consid- 
oration  of  tho  inidertakinirs  of  (he  otiier  party.     It  iioin»iin8 
evident    that     in    consideration    of     the    mionoy    which    the 
owners  of  the  stock  were  to  pa\  ,  the  cattle  wen-  to  he  lii'aM**- 
ported   to  iheii'  destination,  and  the  persons   ridin;jj  0*1  the 
train  to  InKc  cai-e  of  tlu'iii   were  al>o  to  hav#'  tliHir  paiw^«>'«' 
without    any   additional    pauncni.       I'lic  c<Hi»itraet   calls  this 
*  ridini/  f<*c<','  and  it  i*  s«»  in  a  certain  sen-e  ;   tiiat    i*<,  iJi.  y 
>lf\  their  pas.-aifc  in  con»ideration  of  the  otiii'i'  juovision-  <>f 
the  contract,  and  free   from   the  paynienf  of  the  fare  whi- h 
is  I'xactri!  of  other  pa  ^sen^jicis.     Tb*'  per  .■»<ju»<  who  wore  tt* 


.'UH 


THK  (ONTUACT8  OF  CAKUIKKS. 


[<H. 


m 


travi'l  ill  <(nisicl(M'ati()ii  of  the  contracl  respecting;  the  cattle, 
were  not  ohli^it'd  to  i'o  in  the  cars  attached  to  tlie  catlle 
train,  hut  were  presenti-d  witli  passage  tick<'ts  achnittiiiu 
tlieni  to  seats  in  the  ordinary  passenger  cars  without  fnr- 
th«'r  iiayinent  ;  l)iit  tiioe  tii-licts  contain  on  on<'  siih'  a  vcrv 
distinct  statement  liial  the  company  is  not  to  lie  lialtU'  li>r 
injuries  to  the  person  arisinir  out  of  the  u«'i!li^tMicc  of  tiu- 
company's  aiTcnts.  If  sucli  a  stipuhilion  is  h'i>;al,  the  pas- 
.senj/er  receivinj;  the  ticket  must  lu'  deemed  to  have  assenlcij 
to  it  as  one  of  the  terms  of  his  contract  with  the  companx. 
*' 'I'hese  coiisiih-rations  h-ad  nu'  to  the  con(lu>ioii  that  the 
deceased,  when  lie  received  ihi'  fatal  injury,  was  not  tiavcl- 
iu*f  as  a  free  passen<r«'r  ou  the  def«'udant"s  road  >o  as  to 
hrinjr  the  <'ase  within  the  reason  of  th«'  case  of  /V/'/,///v. 
The  price  of  his  passaj^e  was  paid  for  hy  the  other  stipula- 
tions (if  the  ajrreemeut.  In  I'lillaililpliin  d'  I{iti(Unii  lioil- 
rooi/  Cotti/tiiiii/  V.  /h-rfii/''  ami  aj;ain  in  T/ic  Xt  ir  W'oriil  \ . 
A'iiK/'*  passenjicrs  in  the  defendants'  vehicles  who  did  not 
jiay  anythiuir,  hut  the  conveyance  of  whom  was  c(»nsidcrcd 
inci(h'ntally  advautaircous  to  the  proprietors  of  the  line,  \,v\v 
held  not  to  he  iriat uitous  pas>cnp'rs.  It  seems  to  nic, 
therefoiv,  that  the  condition  of  the  deceased,  and  the  ri^lit 
of  his  ivpn'sentativt's  to  rciovcr  dama«r*'><  on  account  of  his 
death,  aix'  precisolv  th«'  same  as  tliou^rl)  li«'  iiad  paid  his 
fan*  in  money;  and  that  the  defemlanl^  are  liahlc  in  this 
action,  indi'sx  the  airrecment  contained  in  the  contract  and 
repcat«'d  on  the  passeuircr  ticket,  to  a>«um<  the  risk  of  in- 
juries c;tu>cd  l»y  the  neirliir«'uce  of  the  «onipanys"  serviuit>, 
is  a  lawful  and  \a!id  stipulation.  Il  uui>l  he  aduiitled  that 
the  owners  ol'  the  cattle  were  enaliled  to  conlmct  for  the 
services  which  the  coiupanx  airreed  to  reu«)ei-,  at  a  le>s  pric(« 
than  they  would  have  heen  ohiipd  to  pay  if  they  had  not  as- 
sum.'d  the  risk>  nicnlioni'd  ;  for  it  i>  ^o  exprc^^ly  stated  in 
the  aii'i'eeuicnt .  Hut  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  defendants  had 
no  iiuht,even  hy  contract,  to  exoneuUe  tlieinselvo  from  the 

'■'  1 1  IIow.  HIS    IS,-,:)). 
'*  Ki  ll<.«.  iii!i  (iv:.;l). 


ClI.  IX.] 


CONHIDKUATION. 


;M!i 


(•()iiM(M|U('nc('s  of  the  ncjrlijXt'iicc  of  their  own  scnaiits,  and 
to  cast  those  Imrdcns  npon  passentrers  wlio  paid  a  eonipen- 
salioii  for  their  passafr<'.  The  maxim,  hdxIii.s  it  mnrt  iiliu 
riiiiiiiit  tcijf'iii,  is  not  of  uiiivei>al  applitalion,  Iml  is  suKject 
to  certain  liniitati(»iis  in  case>  where  the  interests  of  the 
piiMie  oi' of  moliilitv  are  affertcd  l»\  a  contract .  The  gen- 
eral raih'oad  act .  the  pidvi>ion>  of  wiiich  are  Winding  upon 
the  (h-feiahmts"  corpoiati<tii,  after  enaelini;'  that  every  rail- 
road corporation  shall  sliirl  inid  run  their  car-  for  the  trans- 
portation of  persons  and  propcily  at  re;/nlar  limes  and  >hall 
furnish  sutlicient  accommodation  for  the  traMs|)oi°tation  of 
all  such  pa>sen<;«'i's  and  properly,  and  -hail  tran.>porl 
and  dischar<:;e  such  pM.-.sen<fer-<  and  pntperty  •  (»n  the  dm- 
payment  of  the  freight  or  fare  leirally  autiioii/ed  there- 
for,' (K'clar«'s  in  terms  that  the  corporation  '  shall  he 
liable  to  the  party  auirrieved,  in  an  action  foi-  damages,  ftu' 
any  neirh'ct  or  I'efusal  in  the  |)reinises.'  The  plaintiffs  in- 
testati'  entitled  himself  to  tlie  l)enelit  of  this  provision  In 
the  payment  of  such  fare  as  was  recjuired  of  him  l>y  the  de- 
fendants. Hut  he  waived,  if  it  was  competent  for  him  to 
do  so,  the  liability  of  the  defendants  t(»  I'espond  to  him  in 
an  aition  for  damages  imposed  liy  this  provision  and  l»y  the 
ji'eneral  rules  of  law;  and  the  ireneral  I'ule  certainly  is  that 
one  may  at  his  pleasure  r  loniice  the  benetit  of  a  provi- 
(iilHi  inll'oduced  into  a  coii/ract  or  a  law  entirely  in  his  own 
fa\(ir.  Milt  to  this  rid(>  there  i>  ;d>o  a  limitation  of  th«- 
same  ^n-neral  nature  as  that  to  which  I  have  just  refei-red. 
The  law  will  not  allow  pariie>  liy  their  contrai-ts  to  sul)vert 
IIh  own  policy.  If  llic  pulili<-  has  an  intei'(>st  that  railroad 
corporations  should  in  all  eases  be  and  continue  liable  foi' 
injiirh'H  (o  pa>senji;ers  payinjr  fare,  occasioned  by  tlu-  ncirli- 
gelittit  (if  llu'ir  servants,  anil  if  the  pr*»vision  cited  from  the 
jfeueral  railroad  law  was  enacted  in  fuill»«ranee  of  tliat  pol- 
icy, it  is  not  in  thepowi  r  of  parties  to  ehanjre  the  rule  in  IimII- 
vidual  eases.  The  defendants  claim  a  liirht  t'.  exonipt  them- 
selves from  the  liability  impose.!  iiy  law.  by  .^pe<ial  euMj- 
Iracts  with  pa-senji'ers.      A-  to  one  cla>!-  of  pasM-ngers,  thai 


320" 


THE  rONTIlACTW  OF  CAKUIKIIH. 


[ni.  IX. 


to  which  thr  dccniscd  in  this  ciiso  h(<h)ii<r«'(l,  thcv  hiivc  a 
stiiti(iin<r  form  of  a  ••ontriift  l>v  which  the  rcsponsiliilitv  for 
tiir  ii('<rli<'cin'('  of  their  sci'vants  is  shiftnl  from  llirir  own 
slioiiich'is  to  those  (tf  the  piissen^rers.  If  this  iirran<^enieiit 
shall  Ite  sustained,  I  <lo  not  see  why  it  miirht  not  he  applied 
tti  all  eases.  Suppose  they  shoidd  prepare  a  set  of  passen- 
ii'er  tickets  for  which  only  one-half  or  three-fourths  or  any 
ollu'r  proportion  of  the  usual  pi'ice  shoidd  lie  asked,  and 
which  should  contain  a  slinulation  similar  to  the  one  printed 
up<»n  the  hack  of  the  passeuirei'  ticket  fiM'uished  to  the  de- 
ceased in  the  present  case.  No  passcnjrer  expects  in  his 
individual  case  to  lie  injured  (U'  destroye<l  in  the  course  of 
his  journey,  hut  the  pecuniary  advauta^'e  held  out  to  him  liy 
such  a  ticket  as  I  have  supposetl  is  dire«t  and  immediate.  I 
have  no  douitt  that  a  k-nj^c  proportion  of  the  persons  Irav- 
elin<r  hy  railroad  woidd  purchase  the  ciicaper  tickets  and 
aiiree  to  hecome  their  own  insurers.  To  the  precise  extent 
to  which  the  arranjrement  shoidd  prcvjiil,  the  pecuniary  in- 
ducements of  the  corporation  to  the  exercise  of  the  lii<.di 
dcL'ree  (»f  care  and  viLMlance  which  tlu'  peculiar  nature  of 
this  mode  of  transit  re(|uires,  mi^ht  hi-  expected  to  he  re- 
laxed. If  we  assume,  as  1  think  we  reasonaltly  may,  that 
the  provision  of  the  statute  declarinjr  the  liahility  of  the 
corporation  for  the  ne;jflect  of  their  si-rvants  was  introduced 
for  reasons  of  public  policy  and  in  (»rdcr  to  se<'ure  the 
<j:reatest  dcijrec  of  caution  <ni  the  part  of  the  man.'itrers  of 
the  railroads,  such  a  practice  as  I  have  supposed  would  frus- 
trate tHe  intentions  of  the  leirislature. 

•'  I  concede  that  there  is  no  direct  authority  for  the  conclu- 
sion to  which  I  have  arrived.  Hut  the  snhject  itself  is  of  re- 
<'ent  oriixin.  No  arrantr<Mncnt  in  the  wlndc  raniic  of  modern 
ci\  ili/ation  can  compare  with  that  l»y  which  many  hundreds  of 
people  are  carried  at  the  same  time,  at  an  unprecedented  rate 
(»f  speed  hy  the  power  of  steam,  from  one  piii't  of  lh«>  coun- 
try to  iiiiothcr,  hy  \arious  and  complicated  contrivances, 
W  here  a  Very  sliirht  neiiiect  would  lie  likely  to  jirove  exten- 
sively fatal  to  life  or  limli.     The  circumstances   were  well 


(II.   IX. 


CftNsiUK.IiNTION, 


;{'ji 


talcilliltcd  111  rjill  fill'  the  lii(»>l   liiicl'iil  |)l'(>visi(t|is  (III  tlic  |(!ili 

(if  llic  Ic''is|iil lire  ill  iddfi'  l(»  scciirc  lli.  iitiini»l  dcirrcc  <»f 
ciii'c  iiiid  circuiiioiict'tidii.  |{:iil\v:iv>  iiic  (-(tiLsh  ii'IcmI  aiiil 
itlitTMtcd  f(tr  |»nr|nt>t'.«.  of  iicciiiiinry  iruin.  I'lic  diiiiiMircs  «»!• 
ri>Mi|)('ii>Mti(iii  jiaid  til  |iiirtii'>  iujiii-cd.  i-iid  hi  (lie  iciii'cM'iita- 
li\('s  (if  .such  iis  arc  killed,  run-liiiiic,  iiiifdrlmiiihlx ,  ii  ((tii- 
••idcnildf  didiictidii  fi'im  ihc  jii'dlits  of  micIi  (•iil«'i|)ii.s«'s. 
'I'lic  li.-iltilit  \  (if  the  ('di'|MirMl  idii  Id  iiiaki  >u<li  i'i>iii|iciisalinn 
is  t's|;»lilis|i('d  liv  a  |iillilii'  law.  (  )iif  nlijccl  df  the  ciiait- 
iiit'iil  was  lid  ddiilit  Id  ciifdiic  tiic  i-ciidciiiii:' of  jiislicc  to 
■.mil  |M'rsdii>  a>  iiii^lil  siillVi'  fioi:  tlic  iiciflcci  df  llic  cor- 
|idi'ali(iiis  (ir  ilicir  aufciils.  If  tln^  ucic  all,  imtsoms  ni- 
uairiiiir  |>:issaj.'('  on  a  railroad  ini^lii  waive  ilicir  rij^his  li\  a 
|trds|»e(  live  ai'raiii;tiiieiil  :  Iml  if  ii  I  Inic,  as  I  lieiieveil 
Id  lie,  lliat  there  was  a  fiirlliei'  iiidiisc  -iicli  as  I  have  siij;- 
t^csled,  namely,  to  -emre  the  Lrr»'iil("-t  deirree  df  peifectidii 
ill  the  iiiechaiiiiai  anaiii^ciiieiit s,  and  df  skill  and  eaiilidii  (  i 
the  part  of  the  d|)ei'atdi's  ediieenie(|  in  the  iiianai>('iiieiit ,  then 
the  pi-dv  i>idii  was  made  in  aid  df  a  |iiililie  itolicy  in  which 
every  citi/.eii  df  the  Slate  i>  interested,  and  which  no  diie 
iKir  any  minilier  of  |)ersdii^  liy  a  private  liart:ain  with  a  rail- 
fdad  cdr|tdrat  idii,  can  weaken  or  siilivert. 

"  It  is  laid  ddwn  in  all  systematic  ticatiscs  on  cdntracts, 
that  sti|Milalidns  in  violatidii  of  piiMic  |idiicy  are  Vdid,  and  the 
inle  is  exemplilied  liy  iiiimcrdiis  adjiidicatidiis.  The  familiar 
in>taiices  in  which  agreements  in  rotraint  df  trade  have  heeii 
declared  illei:al,  fairly  e\eiii|ilify  the  |>rinci|>le.  The  party 
lliiis  liindiiii:'  himself  ddcs  not  therel)y  undertake  to  do  aiiy- 
lliiii".''  wrdiii:-  in  itself:  and  it  is  imt  on  his  accdimt  that  the 
cdiitract  is  cdiisidered  invalid.  Uiit  thepulilicat  lari:c  have 
an  iiilerot  in  encdnra«:inir  industry  and  enterprise,  and  in 
preveiitiiii:  monopdlies.  .Mthdutih  the  princi|)le  referred  to 
is  a  iTciieral  diie,  it  is  not  dfteii  that  a  cdiirt  can  he  prdperly 
called  upon  Id  applv  it  Id  a  new  case.  Men's  minds  may 
W(  II  differ  as  to  what  may  or  may  not  accord  with  puhlic 
poThy  ill  a  iiiven  case  :  and  whether  the  performance  (d"  a 
particular  undertaking-  would  he  hostile  in  an  appreciahle 
21 


mtii,-rjmi-.^0fMimms.iir 


.%.  ^'^^ 


iMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 

^1^  ^ 

Ui  Ui   12.2 
^   1^    12.0 

■yuu 

1.! 

li  ( A 

1.25 

1'^ 

III '-6 

6" 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


SJ 


\ 


\ 


:\ 


c^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREkT 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  S72-4S03 


%' 


,4^ 


6^ 


^ 


322 


TlIK  CONTHAC'TS  OF  CAKIUKUS. 


[CH.   IX. 


i  I 


degree  to  a  principle  of  puhlie  law,  may  |)reseiil  a  (|Uosti()i) 
of  difKeultv.  The  laws  eiiaeted  to  enforee  eare  and  atten- 
tion in  the  nianaucnienl  of  railways,  and  the  enjrines  and 
carria<>os  by  which  such  innnense  nuniI)ersof  peoi)leare  con- 
veyed, are  intended  to  sul)servc  a  policy  which  looks  to  the 
security  of  the  eoiuniunity  :  and  1  think  we  can  not  err  in 
.holding  that  any  contract,  the  tendency  of  which  is  to 
impair  the  etHciency  of  such  laws,  is  illegal  within  the  prin- 
ciple which  has  been  mentioned, 

"1  have  looked  carefully  at  the  cases  respecting  the  ability 
of  common  carriers  to  limit  their  responsibility  by  special 
contract,  or  by  g(!neral  notice  brought  home  to  the  owner  of 
the  goods.  It  was  once  supposed  to  be  settled  in  thi.s  State 
that  an  agreenuMit  that  the  carrier  should  not  l>e  nvsponsi- 
ble  according  to  tlu;  connnon  law  would  be  void,  as  being 
against  public  policy;'"'  but  the  i)()int  was  reconsidered  and 
tiie  question  settled  the  other  way.'''  We  adhei'c,  however, 
to  the  rule  tiiat  the  carrier  can  not  avoid  liability  by  giving 
notice  to  that  effect,  even  though  it  be  brought  home  to 
the  party  sending  forward  the  goods.  Jn  thus  holding, 
Ave  assume  that  such  contriicts  are  to  a  ceilain  i^xlent  nos- 
tiie  to  sound  public  policy  ;  for  we  reject  evidence  which 
would  be  competent  to  prove  an  agi'i'ctnent  in  any  other 
C!t!^o,  15ut  these  decisions  do  not  relate  to  carriage  on  rail- 
roads, nor  do  they  concern  the  transportation  of  jjasscn- 
gers.  As  to  the  ciirriage  of  |)roperty,  the  English  courts,  it 
must  be  conceded,  do  hold  that  raih'oad  companies  may 
by  special  contract  avoid  res))onsibility  for  negligence  of 
tiuMr  own  .servants,  though  of  the  degree  called  gross  nt'gli- 
gence.  It  is  not  necessary  to  determine  whether  we  should 
decide  in  ac"ordaiice  with  that  doctri  u-  ;  for  there  is  a  man- 
ifest distinction  between  the  case  of  property  and  that  of 
persons.  As  to  the  former  the  carrier  is  an  insurer  again>t 
ail  accidents,  exi'cpt  in  two  well  knowii  cases,  and  may  often 
be  held  liable  without  any  actual  fault  on  his  own  pai't  or  on 

''••  Gould  V.  Hill,  i  Hill.  dJ:!  (isij). 

™  Dorr  V.  Xcw  .Iciscy  Steam  \av.  Co..  1  .Siiiiilf.  KK!  (18.")tl). 


M  •<• 


CII.   IX.] 


CONSIDRUATIOX. 


323 


tliiit  of  his  servants  ;  while  a  carrit  r  of  passengers  can  only 
I)<'  made  resj)()nsil)le  for  actual  iieglijjjenee  of  himself  or  of 
those  for  whose  acts  and  omissions  he  is  resi)onsil)le,  1+  is 
(|uite  consistent  to  allow  one  wlio,  in  the  absence  of  a  con- 
tract, is  a  jreneral  and  almost  a  universal  insurer,  to  (lualifv 
his  liahility  by  an  aureemeiit  with  the  other  party,  and  still 
to  hold  that  where  t'le  law  for  the  l)etter  protection  of  life 
and  member  has  attached  a  certain  conse<iuence  to  actual 
neglif^ence  the  parties  can  not  by  convention  dispense  Avith 
so  salutary  a  rule." 

These  cases  above  —  to  which  more  than  ordinarv  space 
has  been  given  on  account  of  the  thorough  discussion  which 
the  subject  received  from  a  number  of  judges  —  show  that 
the  rule  in  New  York  is  now  estal)lished  tiiat  a  contract  be- 
tween a  ])assenger  aiul  a  carriei-  that  in  consideration  of  an 
al)atement  in  whole  oi*  in  part  of  the  legal  fare,  the  latter 
will  take  U])()n  himsi'lf  tlu'  risk  of  damage  from  the  negli- 
gence of  agents  and  servants,  for  which  the  carrier  would 
otherwise  l)e  liable,  is  valid  and  not  contrary  to  the  policy 
(»f  that  State."  This  is  not,  as  we  \\n\o  already  ])ointed  out, 
the  American  doctrine  ;  and  it  is  unnecessary  for  us  here  to 
repeat  what  we  have  shown  in  another  i)lace,that  it  is  a  rule 
both  impolitic  and  unjust.'"*  Its  evils  have  been  judicially 
acknowledged  in  the  very  State  where  it  was  adopted  sifter 
so  long  a  struggle.  "  The  fruits  of  this  rule,"  says  D.vvis, 
.I.,of  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals,'''  "are  already  being 
gathered  in  increasing  accidents  throuirh  the  decreasing  care 
and  vigilance  on  the  ))art  of  these  corporations,  and  they 
will  continue  to  l)e  reape(i  until  a  just  sense  of  public  policy 
shall  lead  to  legislative  restriction  u))on  the  power  to  mr.ke 
tills  kind  of  contracts." 


■'  Cases  cited  autf  iii  tliis  scctioii  and  t'ollowcd  in  Boswell  v.  Itudsoii 
lUver  K.  Co.,  .">  Bosw.  ()!>!»:  .<.  c.  10  Abb.  Pr.  4i;{  (ISCO);  Stiasou  v. 
New  Yoik  Cent.  1{.  Co..  IVl  N.  Y.  :m  (ISO,")),  anil  roiiolicr  v.  New  York 
Cent.  11.  Co..  tn  X.  Y.  -HVA  (1S7'2). 

^^  AntP  Cap.  III. 

"'■'Stin^oM  V.  New  York  Cent.  1{.  Co..  :!-J  V.  Y.  XV.)  (isil")). 


324 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  CAURIEHf*. 


[cn     IX. 


§  221 .  Pirsun)j)ffO)i  frnni  Possession  of  Free  J*ass. —  One 
liiiviiiir  a  free  pass  in  liis  possession  is  prosunicd  to  be  travel- 
ing; on  it  even  thouirh  it  was  his  intention  to  pay  his  fare. 
In  an  Irish  ease  of  some  novelty  where  this  (piestion  Avas 
presented,'*"  the  ))laintiff  lived  in  a  house  in  Monksiown  which 
he  had  huiit  and  in  consideration  whereof  he  was  i^iven  afreet 
pass  hy  the  defendants  from  there  to  I'assau'e  and  hack,  suh- 
jeot  to  conditions  exempt injr  them  from  liability.  With  the 
intention  of  "ioinu- to  (^iieenstown  a  point  l)eyond  Monkstowit 
and  of  payinii"  bis  fare  between  those  places,  he  went  on 
board  one  of  the  company's  steamers  at  I*assaj:i'.  1I<'  ba<l 
previously,  on  the  same  day.  traveled  on  the  pass  fioni 
Monkstown  to  Passa;r<',  whence  he  was  then  retnrniiiir.  I'he 
amount  of  faro  from  Passaire  to  (^ueeiistown  was  tlie  same 
as  from  Monkstown  to  Qneenstown.  'I'he  faics  of  passeii- 
<>ers  were  to  l)e  paid  on  !»oai"d  the  steamer,  and  might  l)e 
paid  at  any  time  durinu'  the  passajre.  The  intention  of  the 
plaintiff  to  uo  on  to  (^ueiMistown,  he  eomnnmicated  to  a 
compani<;n  but  not  to  the  defenilants.  Befoi-e  the  steamer 
reached  ]\Ionkstown  he  accidentally  j)laced  his  foot  in  a  hole 
in  the  deck  and  was  injured,  in  conseciui'nce  of  which  lie 
did  not  complete  his  journey  to  (Qneenstown  but  was  obliired 
to  get  of  at  Moidvstown.  On  the  trial  the  plaintiff  obtained 
a  verdict  for  £500  which  was  rev<'rsed  by  the  coui't  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  on  ap[)eal.  I.awsox,  fl.  :  "I  think  this  ease  is  free 
from  all  doubt  that  this  gentlennm,  on  the  day  of  the  acci- 
dent, used  his  free  pass,  and  that  instead  of  paying  his  fare 
he  traveled  for  nothing.  Then,  it  lias  been  said  that  by 
reason  of  his  having  formed  an  int(>ntion  in  his  mind  to  go 
on  further,  he  I)ecame  a  passenger  foi-  hire.  He  altered 
that  intention  —  he  never  took  a  ticket,  and  got  out  at 
^fonkstown.  In  my  opinion  there  was  nothing  to  go  to  the 
jury  to  show  that  he  was  not  traveling  on  his  free  pass. 
'I'he  v<'rdict  must  be  entered  up  foi"  the  defendants."  MoK- 
IMS,  .1.  :  "  \  am  also  of  opinion  that  the  verdict  must  be 
entered  up  foi"  the  defendants.  I  do  not  offer  any  opinion 
"'Ncvilli'  v.Cnrki^c.  |{. «'.)..  it  Ir.  I,.  .1.  H.-p.  !!!•.  2Ci'iit.  I...I.:!(;(;  (ls7r.). 


1     IX. 


<1I.    IX.] 


CONSIDKIJATION. 


32:> 


I- Olio 

avcl- 
fiirc. 

II    Mils 

whicli 

I  free 

,   Sllll- 

II  tlH' 

town 

l1    oil 

h:i(l 

from 


oil  the  other  (jucslions  which  niiiiiit  arise  in  the  ease  — 
iiainely,  as  to  iicirlijiciice.  Jf  the  phiintiff  had  siiown  that 
he  haa  yoiie  into  the  vessel  as  a  uasseiiu'er  from  I'assajjfe  to 
(^ueenstowii,  that  iiiii;lit  iie  sutlicient  evidence  to  show  that 
he  was  a  passenirer  for  hire  ;  hut  the  moment  it  was  dis- 
ch)sed  t'lat  lie  iiad  a  free  pass  or  a  license,  tiie  onus  was  cast 
upon  him  to  show  that  althouiih  he  had  a  license  enablinu' 
him  to  lio  that  portion  of  the  jouriu'v  on  which  this  accident 
happened,  and  exeni[)tinu-  the  company  from  lial)ility  for 
(l.imau'es,  he  was  travelinji-  otherwise  than  in  riiiht  of  that 
lii'ense.  'i'his  accident  ha|>peiis  while  he  is  hetween  Passa<>e 
and  Monkstowii.  Now,  the  onus  heino-  thrown  upon  him  of 
>liowin<i'  (hat  he  was  not  then  iisinu-  this  license  —  how  does 
he  do  that?  By  showinu'  that  in  his  own  mind  he  intended 
to  u'o  on  to  (^uccnstown.  lie  does  not  tell  that  to  the  de- 
fendants, 'i'hev  must  havc^  supjiosed  that  he  was  traveling-' 
on  the  pass,  hecuuse  it  entitled  him  to  jro  to  Monkstown. 
Ilow  were  the  company  to  conceive  that  he  was  not  using 
his  pass?  There  must  he  a  mutuality  of  contract.  And 
though  this  free  pass  might  he  determined  byword  of  mouth, 
it  was  not  determined.  I  rest  my  judgment  uiion  the  simjile 
ground  that  the  account  given  by  the  plaintiff  has  failed  to 
sh(»w  that  he  was  a  passenger  for  hire.  I  believe  that  the 
gentleman  did  intend  to  go  on  to  (^ueenstown  :  but  at  the 
time  the  accident  occurred,  he  was  not  lietween  Monkstown 
and  (^uecnstown."'  Kr.ociii,  fl.  :  "  I  am  of  the  same  opin- 
ion. The  condition  on  which  the  fn'c  jiass  was  given  was 
that  the  company  should  not  Ix'  liable  in  res[)ect  of  personal 
injury  to  the  ])asseiiger  using  it.  It  is  a  license  to  go  to 
Cork  from  Moiikstown  :  the  ]»laintiff  availed  himself  of  that 
license,  and  in  order  to  change  his  jiosition  the  onus  lay  ujion 
liini  to  prove  that  he  had  assumed  a  different  iiosition. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  he  vvvv  communicated  his  inten- 
tion to  any  one,  excepi  to  a  <'om])aiii()n  who  was  traveling 
with  him.  I  am.  therefore,  of  oi)ini()n  that  this  verdict 
should  be  entered  up  for  the  defendants."  MoxAifAX.  C 
.1.  :      "1  am  of  the  same  opinion.     It  appears  from  this  free 


If 


yiiih- 


326 


THE  CONTUACTS  OF  CAURIEUS. 


[cn.   IX. 


pass  that  this  gontloman  was  pennitted  to  tvavol  from  Cork 
to  Monkstown  ;  when  ho  ontercd  the  vessel,  it  imist  be  as- 
sumed that  he  was  traveling  on  it ;  for  he  never  intimated 
to  the  company  that  he  was  going  further.  There  was  no 
case  whatever  to  go  to  the  jury,  antl  the  verdiet  nmst  he 
entered  for  the  defendants.'' 

§  222.  Criminal  LiahiUty.  —  In  a  Massachusetts  case 
where  one  traveled  on  a  railroad  under  a  contract  with  the 
company,  which  permitted  him  to  sell  popped-corn  on  the 
road  to  passengers,  a  privilege  for  which  he  paid  a  certain 
sum  of  money  annualh',  and  held  a  season  ticket  which  was 
endorsed  as  follows:  "The  corporation  assumes  no  lia- 
bility for  any  personal  injury  received  while  in  a  train  to 
any  season  ticket  holder,"  and  he  Avas  killed  by  a  collision 
of  the  train  in  which  he  was  traveling  with  a  hand-car  be- 
longing to  the  comi)any,  it  was  held  that  the  conditions 
printed  on  the  back  of.  the  ticket  could  not  have  the  effect 
to  relieve  the  company  from  its  legal  liability  under  a  penal 
statute  for  gross  ne'rlij'encc  and  carelessness.'*' 

**'  Cowan  V.  Vermont  H.L'd..  lOS  Muss.  101  (1871). 


<  II, 


x.j 


roWKKS  OF  ACKNTS. 


327 


CHAPTKH   X. 


POWKIJS   AM)  LIAIUMTIKS  OF  A(!KNTS. 


•K(  T 

2j:{. 

•J24. 
•>-2't. 
•1-M. 
■117. 

■lis. 
■1-lU. 
■1-M\. 

•j;fi. 

•IM. 


ION. 


Power  of  Anient  of  Owner  to  Coiitraet  Witli  CiiiTier. 

Who  are  Witliin  tliii  Rule. 

Ciinicr  N'eed  Not  Kxaiiiine  Authority. 

^lotice  to  Principal. 

Carriers"  Knowledjji'  of  A;;eiit"s  Waiitjof  Autliority. 

Lialiilily  of  Aj^enl  to  PriMcii)al. 

Power  of  Agent  of  Carrier  to  Mak(!  ('ontracts. 

Wlio  are  Witliin  this  Hnle. 

When  Carrier  Not  Bound. 

Ads  of  Agent  When  Not  Binding. 

lOxpress,  Forwarding  and  Dispateh  Companies, 


§  223.  Poircr  of  Affen/ of  Ox'iiPr  fo  Vontvart  With  Vor- 
ricr. — It  may  ho  said  goiici-ally  that  authority  given  to  an 
aociit  to  ship  pi-opcfty  carries  with  it  iiiithority  to  iicccpt  Ji 
i»ill  of  ladiiiu',  or  to  make  a  contriiet  containing  exemptions 
from  liability.'     Thus,  where  the  owner  of  live  stock  places 

'  .Moriarly  v.  Hariiden's  Kx..  1  Daly.  Ill  (IS(i-J) ;  Christerison  v.  Amer- 
ican Ex.  <'o..  1.")  Minn.-27(t  (1S7()) :  Shelto'i  v.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Trans. 
( 'o..  :!(!  N.  Y.  (S.  V.)  'yll  (1S7:{) ;  ,»•.  r.  W,)  N.  Y.  2:)S  (1874) ;  Robinson  v. 
Merchants'  Disi)atcli  'I'l'ans.  Co..  15  Iowa. -170  (1S77) ;  Meyer  v.  Ilarn- 
(len's  Kx.  Co..  21  How.  Pr. -JiX)  (1S(!-J):  Bean  v.  CJreen,  PJ  Me.  422  (IS!}.')); 
i'illelirown  V.  (irand  'I'mnl^  |{.  Co.,.V)  Me.  4(12  (1S(;7);  Levy  v.  South(!ru 
i;x.  Co..  4  S.  C.  2;t4  (1S72).  ••That  the  pfaintiff  herself  never  read  the 
paper  [a  liill  of  lading  containing  conditions]  is  of  no  moment.  The 
arrangen'.'.nt  was  made  l»y  her  agent,  who  nnist  he  i)resumed  to  have  ae- 
ipiainteil  himself  with  the  terms  of  the  engagement  whii^li  the  defend- 
ant assented  to."     Steers  v    Liverpool  Steamship  Co..  h'  N.  Y.  1  (1874). 


•if' 


32H 


THK  (;ONTKA(TS  OF  CAKKIKItH. 


[CII.  X. 


m 


»^ 


tliciii  ill  the  cu.slodv  of  an  aiiciit  to  lie  tlclivcivd  hv  him  to 
ii  railroad  coinpaiiy  for  transportation,  llic  ajrinit  also  liavinu- 
instructions  to  ^o  with  tiic  stock  on  tlic  train,  the  au'ciit  will 
have  antiiority  (o  hind  his  principal  as  to  the  terms  of  tlie 
transportation,  and  tlu^  principal  will  he  hound  Ity  u  contract 
eontiiiniiig  conditions  haiuh-d  to  him  hy  the  carrier  and  hy 
him  signed  with  tlu^  owner's  name.-  In  \nr  Jrrsri/  Slrani 
N(ivi(jafi(>n  dniijiaiti/  i\  Mcrc/Kiiifs'  Hank;'  Ilarndeii,  an 
expressman,  had  a  contract  with  the  naviuation  company 
_<;ivin<i;  him  the  privileu'c  for  a  consideration,  of  transport- 
inji  the  goods  which  might  he  intrus'ed  to  him  in  their 
stc.'unors.  'i'lie  conii'iict  exempted  the  com|)any  from  cer- 
tain risks.  He  was  employed  hy  the  hank  to  forward  a  sum 
of  iiione}'  wiiich  was  lost  while  in  the  possession  of  the 
company.  In  a  suit  hy  the  hank  against  the  com|)any,  it 
was  held  hy  the  Supreme  C'ourt  of  the  I'liited  Stales  that 
the  hank  was  hound  hy  the  limitation  contained  in  the  con- 
tract first  referred  to.  'V\\v  expressman  was  treated  as  the 
ag<'nt  of  the  hank. 

^  224.  Who  an'  Wllliln  Ihls  l{uh'. — Where  the  owiu'r  of 
goods  suffers  another  to  deal  with  them,  and  such  third  per- 
.son  makes  a  contract  with  a  carrier  forthe  transportation  of 
tlu'  goods,  th(^  carrier  sii])posing  the  agent  to  I»e  the  true 
owner,  the.  latter  can  not  afterwards  avoid  the  contract  In 
d(*iiying  the  authority  of  his  agent  to  make  such  a  contract.' 
The  consiiiiior  is  reixarded  as  the  aji'enl  of  the  consi<inee  for 
the  pur[)ose  of  entering  into  contracts  for  their  carriage,' 
and,  in  like  manner,  a  notice  given  to  the  vendor  i- 
e(piivaleiit  to  a  notice  to  the  vendee  wlio  directed  the 
goods  to  he  sent.''  In  Redlield  on  ("arrieis  it  is  said: 
"■  ;\.s    a   general    rule    the    au'eiit    to    whom   the    >  -\  ner   in- 


-Siiwirf  V.  New  York  Ci'iil.  |{.  Co..  lis  Mm--.  -IM)  (  lS(i7). 
'M;  How.  :{n  (ISIS). 

*  York  Coiiipiiiiv  V.  ('.'iilriil  K:iili-nii(l.  :{  Wnll.  107  (isc,:,). 
■''|{ol)iiis(>ii  V.  Mi'ii'JiMnis"    Dispiitcli  'l'r.m<.  <'ci..    iTi    Io\\:i.   171'  ( is77 1 : 
(!lirist('iisoii  V.  Aiiici'icaii  lOx.  Co..  l.'i  Mimi.  270  (IS7()). 
''Maviiii;'  v.  Todcl.  1  Staik.  li.  I  Camp.  •_'•_'.')  (|sl.-)^ 


II.   X. 


(11.   X.] 


I'OWKKS  OF  .\<;KX'I\S. 


;i2it 


trusts  the  j^oods  for  dc^livcrv  must  Ix'  rcuiirdocl  as  liaviuji' 
autliority  to  stipulate  for  the  terms  of  transportation,  lly 
this  we  do  not  mean  liie  porter,  or  cabman  oi'  mere  servant, 
but  tiu!  eonsii^nor  of  tlie  jfctods  or  any  other  ajivnt  wiio  pur- 
chases or  proeni-es  Ihem  for  him."  "  It  has  been  t'xpressly 
iiehl  in  Ahibama  that  a  (h-aynum  has  no  autliority  to  mai;e  a 
contract  t'oi'  the  eonsiijnor  limit iuir  the  liability  of  tlie  car- 
rier.'* though  a  conirary  rulinu'  is  to  be  found  in  a  later  deci- 
sion in  lowi'."  In  jV>'/.s()ii  r.  J/m/sfui  Hirer  /'(li/roatl  Cdiii- 
yKO(//,"' decided  liylhe  New  ^'ork  Court  of  Appi'als  in  1.s7l\ 
A  havini:' bouii'hl  a  laruc  mirror  from  li,  directed  him  to  for- 
wai'd  it  (»n  a  desiiiiiated  railroad.  !>  sent  the  mirroi-  by  a 
cai'tman  to  the  railroad  depot  for  shipment .  The  company 
re(|uireil  the  cartman  to  siiiMi  a  written  contract  as  aji'ent  for 
the  shipper,  relieviiiii'  them  fi'om  all  liability  for  breakau'e. 
The  contract  also  contained  a  cliuise  re(|iiii'inu'  any  ()l)jection 
to  tin'  contract  to  be  notified  to  the  company  before  the 
propei'ty  was  shipp(>(l,  in  order  that  a  new  contract  miii'ht  be 
made.  The  cai'tman  also  airreed  that  the  mirror  should  l)e 
tletained  at  tin-  depot  until  the  next  day,  and  sh  )uld  l)e  then 
retuiMU'd  to  the  shipper  if  i'e(|uested.  The  cartman  made 
known  these  facts  to  H,  iind  nave  him  a  duplicate  of  the 
contract.  On  the  next  day,  no  noti«'e  of  ilissent  from  the 
contract  havinu"  l)een  iiiven  to  the  railroad  company,  the  mir- 
ror was  forwai'detl.  It  nas  held  that  A  was  bound  by  the 
conditions.  Hut  it  was  expressly  said  in  this  case  that  the 
cartman  had  no  authority  to  make  the  contract — the  sul)se- 
(|uent  ratification  of  his  act  In  R  not  expressinu"  any  objec- 
tion as  to  its  terms  beini;'  the  ^rouiul  on  which  the  decision 
was  placed.  In  Burhhi ml  r.Adatiis  Exprt'ss  Coiiijxni//,^^ 
decided  !)y  the  Supreme  .ludicial  Court  of  ^lassachusetts  in 
1><<)7,   the  plaintiff    had   I)ou<iht  a  case  of    pist'ds   from   a 


"  liciilicli!  nil  ( '.inici-.  >  '>•!. 

•^Southern  i'.x.  Co.  v.  AniistiMd.  r>(i  Al:i.  :i.")ll  (lS7;i). 

'■'  l{(iliiii-(>ii  V.  McrcliiUit-i"  DUpiitfli  Tr:iiis.  Co..  to  In.  170  .  Is77). 

I"  IS  \.  V.  IDS  (1S7-J). 

|".I7  ..Im-^-.  1-JI. 


;{;i() 


TIIK  CONTRACTS  OF  CAWUIKKH. 


[CII. 


miiiiufiU'turing  compiiny,  which  wore  sent  hy  express  hy  the 
compiiny,  the  pistols  l)ein<r  delivered  to  the  express  compiiny 
l)V  11  workman  in  the  manufactory,  who  received  from  the 
latti'r  company  h  receipt  limitinjj:  its  liahility.  It  was  held 
that  the  plaintiffs  were  not  hound  hy  the  receipt,  as  they 
had  given  no  authority  t()  tlu^  workman  to  enter  into  any 
such  contract ;  and  that  the  fact  that  the  same  workman  had 
taken  like  receipts  for  shipments  of  jxoods  previously  made 
hy  the  plaintiffs,  and  that  one  of  the  plaintiffs  had  charge 
of  these  receipts,  would  not  hind  the  plaintiffs  to  the  re- 
strictions in  the  receipt  in  (piestion  ;  the  workman  having 
fre(|uently  also  sent  goods  for  the  plaintiffs  without  any  re- 
ceipt or  special  contract  of  any  kind. 

§  22").  Canii'r  Nt^ed  Xot  Examiiif  Aitthorit;/. —  A  car- 
I'ier  receiving  goods  for  carriage  will  not  he  re((uired  t<)  ex- 
amine the  authority  of  the  person  presenting  them  to  make 
a  contract  limiting  his  responsihility.'-'  It  is  said  in  a  New 
\'ork  case  that  to  hold  that  where  goods  are  delivered  the 
carrier  who  chooses  to  limit  his  liahility  should  he  compelled 
to  stop  and  examine  tlu'  authority  of  the  person  presenting 
the  goods  to  make  the  ccmtract,  would  virtually  destroy  tlu; 
carrying  husincss.''  AVhcre  one  conti'actcd  to  pay  a  certain 
prices  for  cars  to  carry  four  hundred  cattle,  and  delivered  a 
part,  signing  a  contract  restricting  the  liahility  of  the  com- 
pany, it  was  considered  propel'  to  i)resume  that  other  per- 
sons who  delivered  the  remainder  of  the  c.'ittle  actcil  as 
his  agents,  and  had  authority  to  sign  similar  contracts.'^ 

§  22(>.  Xotici'  to  Pn'iK-ijxi/. —  N(»ticc  to  the  pi'incipal  is 
notice  to  all  his  agents.'"'  Thus  in  litihhrin  r.  T'o/Z/z/.s-,'"  it 
was  said  :  "  The  counsel  insists  that  as  the  agent  oi-  clerk 
who  was  charged  with  packing  the  goods  and  shipping 
them  was  not  aware  of  the  reuulalion  of  the  defendant,  his 


t?Sr 


'- M«riiirty  v.  Ilin-iidfirs  I'lxprcss.  1  I):ily.  l>27  (ISC.-J). 
'■'Meyer  v.  Ilanideu's  Kxpress  ( O..  24  How.  I'r.  211(1  (ls(;2). 
'<  IlliiinisOeiit.  |{.  ("n.  V.  .Morris.Mi.  \'.>  III.  i:{(!  (IS.-)!). 
!■■'  Miiyliew  V.  Kiiiiie-. ;(  |{.  »<:  ('.  CO].  \  {\  A.  V.  .i:)()  ( Is-J.")). 
"•9  Koh.  -tOS  (ISI.-)). 


•H.     .\. 


(II.   X.] 


I'OWKItS  OF  AdKNTS. 


;{;{i 


clicMit  oujrlit  to  recover,  iiltlioiifrli  his  employer  inijrht . 
Iiiive  known  it.  Wo  think  otherwise.  If  the  prineipal  was 
awiire  of  the  rule,  Ins  client  or  iiijent  l>ein;j:  kept  ijrnorant  of 
it  can  not  ex<'use  him  ;  and  so  if  the  a<.fent  knew  it  and  the 
principal  ditl  not,  still  the  a<rent  would  l)e  hound  to  comply 
with  it,  and  his  failure  would  oi)erate  uj)on  his  employer." 

§  227.  (Jarrievx  Knowlfihic  of  A[ienf\H  Watit  of  Au- 
f/iori'fi/. —  Knowledjj^e  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  that  the 
a;;ent  was  without  authority  to  enter  into  any  contract  would 
of  coui'se  alter  the  rid(^  just  stati'd  ;  as  where  the  owner  has 
;fiven  the  carrier  instructions  to  forward  innnedialely  <;oods 
which  are  to  be  deliver»'d  by  a  cartman,  and  the  latter  at  the 
lime  of  delivery  without  authority  from  the  owner  jjives 
contrary  directions,  tin;  owner  is  not  bound  by  such  direc- 
tions.'' The  case  of  T/ii'  I'arljic^'^  is  another  example,  of 
this  exception.  'I'herc;  the  drayman  of  the  shipper  took  a 
bill  of  ladin;jf  containini;  the  words  "  not  accountable  for 
conlenls,"  and  informed  the  shipper  of  that  fact.  'I'lie  lat- 
ter expressed  his  disap|)r()l)ation  of  the  (|ualilication  at  once 
to  the  drayman,  but  did  not  reclaim  the  jroods.  The  dray- 
man communicated  the  dissatisfaction  of  his  employer  to 
the  clerk  of  the  carrier  while  the  floods  were  lying  on  the 
wharf.  It  was  held  that  the  liability  of  the  carrier  was  not 
<iualitie(l  by  the  ajjcreement. 

§  22.S.  Liahilil;/  of  A(f'))f  to  /*n')icipaL — It  seems  that 
an  airent  intrusted  with  jroods  fjr  the  |)urp()se  of  havnjj: 
them  forwarded  to  their  destii>ation  is  so  far  authorized  to 
enlei'  into  contracts  with  the  cai-rier  by  whom  they  arc  to  be 
sent  that  he  will  be  iH-sponsibU  for  any  damaire  which  they 
may  receive  on  account  of  his  refusal  to  deliver  them  to 
lh(^  carrier  under  a  contract  containinu'  reasonable  condi- 
tions in  limitation  of  his  resjjonsibility.  In  lian't<ou  o. 
J/offctnd,^''  for  example,  the  defendant,  an  express  c()mi)any. 


I'  Moses  V.  Hostoii  &.-.  K.  Co..  21  \.  II.  71  (KS.">1). 
"*  I  D.-udy.  17  (Ism). 

'•'  .">!»  \.  Y.  (til  (lK7r>) :  sec  Bancroft  v.  Mcrcliiints  Dispatcli  Trans.  Co. 
17  Iowa.  •J«2  (1S77). 


3.12 


TMK  CONTIJACT.H  Ol'  CAIJIIIKUS. 


[CH.  X. 


ju'coptcd  floods  ((»  lie  Iraiisporlcd  Itcyoiul  its  line,  Imt  re- 
fused to  deliver  tlietn  to  a  eoiiiieetinjr  carrifi'  at  the  end  of 
its  route,  hecause  llie  latter  would  only  take  the  iroods  uu- 
(h'r  a  contrat't  liniilin<:'  its  couinion  law  liaMlity.  'I'he  ex- 
press company  thei'eupou  stored  the  iroods  in  its  wai'ehouse 
whei'c  they  were  desliMyed  l)y  lire.  The  defendant  wa> 
held  responsihie  for  the  jdss.  lint  in  (iunlmi  r.W'dn//' 
one  \y ,  residing'  in  Michigan,  oi'dered  a  l>aie  of  |(»l»acc(»  from 
(',  a  nu'rehani  in  Oiiio.  direetiuii"  it  to  lie  sent  hy  rail,  and 
<;i\"nn'  as  a  reason  for  this  thai  the  railroad  <-ompany  would 
bci  !ial)Ie  for  all  I'isUs.  (J  sent  the  t<»lta('eo  l»y  rail,  hut  took 
from  the  company  a  hill  td'  ladiniz'  cxemplini;'  them  from 
liahilily  for  loss  l»y  lire.  The  toltacco  while  in  Iransil  was 
licstroyctl  iiy  lire.  In  a  suit  l»y  (i  for  the  price  ot  the  to- 
l»ac('o  he  was  held  entitled  to  recover.  This  decision  is 
hased  upon  the  irround  thai  I  here  was  nolhinir'  to  show  that 
the  railroad  company  was  under  the  ohliiialions  altachinu'  to 
common  carriers  or  that  it  was  within  the  power  of  the  de- 
fendant to  have  re(|uircd  the  shipincnl  on  any  oilier  terms 
than  he  did. 

§  22\}.  J'inn-r  of  A(iiiif  nf  ( '(irrlcr  lo  Muhi-  ('mifrdcfs. — 
In  cases  where  the  liahilily  of  the  carrier  has  been  limited 
l)y  a  contract  made  l»y  one  represent ini;'  himself  as  his  auciit 
for  that  purpose,  the  auth(»rily  of  such  aiicnl  is  an  imma- 
terial (|uestion,  in  a  suit  ajxainst  the  carrier  in  which  the  con- 
tract is  set  upas  a  defense,  foi-  the  reason  that  the  act  of 
the  ajrent  even  if  unauthorized  may  he  taken  advantai^c  of 
by  the  carrier  l)V  a  sui)stM|uent  ralilication.  liut  where  the 
airent  has  attem|)led  to  hind  the  cai'ricr  to  some  new  or  ex- 
traordinary responsibility  oi'  to  duties  not  ii'encrally  assumed 
l>y  him,  th<>  powei-  of  the  au'cnl  becomes  a  (piestion  of  con- 
siderable importance.  As  common  carriers,  especially  at 
the  present  day,  transact  the  iireatci- pai'l  if  not  all  of  their 
business  with  the  public  through  aiicnts  and  servants,  it  is 
l)lain  that  the  public  have  a  I'iuht  to  assume  that  they  ai'c 
iiuthorizetl  to  do  whatcvei-  I  hey  attempt  to  do.  In  W/'n/,- 
-'«i(!Mirii.  :t(;o  (iscs;. 


<'H.  X. 


r...  X.] 


POWKKS  or  AUKNTS. 


;<;{;{ 


11(1  of 
>*  IJIl- 
M'  ex- 

llOllNC 
I     ■tVjIs 

(fni,-" 

I'OIll 

and 
^(Mll(| 

ools 
IVoiii 

IC      1(1- 

uii   i> 
V  thai 

IIU'  to 
ic  (]«•- 

((•nils 


fi't'hl  r.  /*a('h-i)ir/f(ni;'^  the  (Icfcndaiil  l)ciii;r  inf'orincd  liy  (he 
plaiiiliff's  servants  tliut  his  (.roods  would  he  carried  at  a 
cerlain  rale  delivered  tiieiii  on  the  faith  of  this  statement  to 
hill).  'I'he  printed  rates  of  tiie  plaintiff  heiii"''  nuieh 
hiiihci'  he  hroiiiihl  an  action  for  the  iaru'cr  sum.  Lord 
TkntkudKN,  ('.  .1.,  said  :  "  If  a  person  iroes  to  the  otlice  of 
a  carrier  and  asks  what  a  thinu,"  will  he  done  for,  and  he  is 
told  liv  a  clerk  or  servai  I  who  is  transactinir  the  Itusiness 
that  it  will  he  done  for  a  certain  sum.  the  master  can  charj:c 
no  more."  l)<iiiiiini,  of  counsel  for  the  plaintiff,  liavinj:' 
suhmilted  that  it  hein^-  contrary  to  his  ordeis  tlie  clerk  had 
no  ri<;ht  to  ajri"*'*'  that  the  trees  should  he  carried  at  a  rate 
lower  than  that  expressed  in  the  printed  tariff,  the  chief 
justice  refused  to  follow  this  arjiiiment  luit  ordered  jud«i- 
menl  for  the  plaintiff,  savinji"  that  if  iiicn  were  not  hound 
hy  such  harjiiiins  husiness  could  not  iro  on.  It  is  avcH  estah- 
lished  in  this  count rv  that  a  contract  for  the  carriairc  of 
U'oods  made  with  the  ;iuthorizc(l  aeciit  of  the  carrier  is  to  he 
rejjrardefl  as  inude  with  the  carrier  himself."  Thus  where 
an  express  company,  hy  a  clerk  other  than  oiio  whoso  reiru- 
lar  duly  was  to  mak'.'  such  contracts,  avrrecd  to  ship  jfoods 
hy  a  sp(>citied  vessel  not  its  own,  hut  si'ut  them  hy  another 
vessel  which  wit h  the  i^oods  was  lost  at  sea,  it  was  held  that 
the  jreneral  nature  of  the  company's  husiness  recjuiriiiii"  that 
the  duties  jissijrm.d  to  j,  elerk  should  sometimes  he  per- 
formed hy  another  clerk,  the  act  of  the  suhstitutcd  clerk,  if 
within  the  •reneral  scope  (»f  his  duty,  was  the  act  of  tiic 
principal.-''  Where  the  name  of  the  ii<j:ont  of  the  carrier  is 
printed  in  a  hill  of  ladiiiir  which  contracts  for  the  delivery 
of  the  "jfoods  at  the  (Mid  of  his  line,  (he  ay:ent  has  authority 
to  contract  for  the  carriage  of  the  goods  heyond  and  over 
another  line.'-' 
2'  ->  ('.  i<:  r.  :m  (18-J7). 

-'•-'  Myail  V.  Hesteii  ^c.  U.  Co..  10  X.ll.  Vl'l  (1S18):  Reynolds  v.  Top- 
liaii.  1.5  Mass.  :570  (I  SI  ID. 

!« (Joodrk'h  v.  Tlii)iiii)s«.i).  1  !{ol).  (N.  Y.)  7.")  (lS<.(i).  aHinncd  44  V.  Y. 
.\1\  (1S71);  Gi.tlilanl  v.  MMllory.:)2  Harl).  S7  (IS(iS). 

'^*  Haltimorc  itc.  Stramhoal  Co.  v.  I^rowii,  .")4  I'a.  St.  77  (1808). 


"y'^'W^""'^ 


I  i 


■A .' 


I  n 


ZU 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAUHIEK.S. 


[CII.  X. 


:*i 


§  230.  Who  arc  Within,  this  RhIc—Xw  Kiiirlaiul  it  is  held 
thiit  a  station  atauit  may  bind  the  '.arricr  by  a  contract  be- 
yond its  U'lial  duties  and  in  contlict  with  its  rcirulations  ;  he 
may  agrci'  to  carry  to  a  place  or  at  a  time  other  than  tlie 
ruh'8  of  the  company  permit.'-'  'I'he  same  ruh'  is  ap])lied  in 
this  country.  In  Wisi'onsin  it  has  been  heUl  thai  tiie  sta- 
tion agent  of  a  railroad  company  may  l)intl  the  company  to 
a  contract  to  delivi-r  goods  beyond  its  line  and  within  a  cer- 
tain time,-"  and  in  a  New  Ilainpshire  case-'  where  one  had 
agreed  to  deliver  goods  by  a  certain  day  and  the  station 
agent  of  a  railroad  company  having  knowledge  of  tiiis  con- 
tracted that  they  should  be  so  delivered,  the  comi)any  was 
made  liable  foi-  th-  (himages  <'aused  by  their  non-delivery  at 
that  time.  It  has  been  ruled,  howevei',  in  the  same  State  in 
another  case  that  such  an  agent  has  no  authority  t(»  bind 
his  princii)al  by  a  contract  to  carry  freight  by  a  passenger 
train.-'*  In  J'ennsylvania  where  at  the  re(|uest  of  the  <)wnei'  of 
a  freight  car  the  agents  of  a  railroad  comi>any  attached  his 
car  to  a  passenger  train  contrary  to  the  instructions  and 
rules  of  the  comj)any,  he  agreeing  to  run  all  risks,  it  was 
held  that  the  company  would  still  be  liable  for  an  injury 
caused  by  the  negligence  of  their  servants  or  agents.^'  The 
iigent  of  a  railroad  company  for  the  sale  of  tickets  has  au- 
thi)rity  to  make  a  contract  with  a  passenger  which  is  at  va- 
riance with  tiie  printed  conditions  of  the  ticket  ;'"'  but  in 
the  absence  of  evidence  the  presmnption  is  that  a  ticket 
agent  at  a  way  station  has  no  authority  to  change  or  modify 
contracts  between  the  company  and  its  through  passengers." 

§  231.  When  (htrricv  Xot  Jinund. —  In  a  Massachusetts 
case  it  was  decided  that  a  station  airent   of  a  railroad  com- 


^  I'iiknud  v.  CJraiid  .Fniictiiin  It.  <•<..,  12  M.  \  W.  7(!(i  (1S44) :  Wilson 
v.  York  &.<■.  H.^Co..  ISKiiiT.  L.  I'v:  K<|.  :\:u  (tsr.I). 
'^'  Sirolm  V.  Detroit  \c.  H.  I'o..  -Jl!  Wis.  |-J(i  flSCS). 
-•  Dt'iiiiiifi-  V.  Grand  'I'rniik  ]{.  Co..  IS  \.  II.  I .-),-•  (ISii'.l). 
•■«  lOlkins  v.  lioston  \r.  H.  Co..  "J:!  N.  II.  27.")  (iS,-)I). 
-•'  LiK'kawiinnii  (S:c.  I{.  <  'o.  v.  (Mii'iicwilli,  ")_>  j'a.  St.  :!S2  (ISdili. 
■■»  Hiirnhani  v.(;ian(l  Trunk  1{.  Co..  Cli  Mf.  .>f)>!  (ls7;i;. 
■■"  McClmv  v.  I'liiladclpliia  iVc.  I!.  Co..  :'.4  Md.  .■):!•.»  (1S71). 


[en.  X. 


CH, 


X.J 


rOWKllS  or  AGICXTS. 


835 


is  held 
iUt   he- 
ns ;   h,. 
an  lli(. 
>li(Hl  in 
'<■   stii- 
any  1(» 
a  ccr- 
<■  had 
tatioii 

S   COJl- 

iiy  was 
crv  al 
late  ill 
'   l)iii(| 

SClloci- 

ncr  of 
■d  liis 

IS  and 

if   was 

injury 

'■'   T]w 

as  au- 

if  va- 

nii    in 

(ickcf 

odifv 


pany  has  no  authority  to  hiiul  tlic  company  as  connnon  car- 
vicrs  Ifcyond  the  line  of  its  own  road,  by  siirninir  recoii)ts 
fiirnishod  in  l)hink  ))y  the  shipper,  by  thi'  terms  of  whieij  tlie 
eompany  uiulertaKes  to  forward  and  deliver  the  uoods  to 
the  order  of  the  eonsiirnee  at  points  on  a  eonnectinu:  liiu', 
wlier(^  it  appears  that  such  a<>i'nt  aeted  without  special  au- 
thority and  without  tlu^  knowledjic  of  the  eoinpany,  and 
that  the  <)'"cers  of  the  eompany  had  furnished  the  agent 
with  blank  forms  of  receipts  to  be  iiiven  for  goods  shipped 
l)eyond  their  own  line,  by  which  it  was  provided  that  incase 
of  loss  or  damage  of  the  goods  the  eoinpany  only  should  lie 
answerable  in  whose  actual  custody  the  goods  should  be  at 
the  time  of  the  loss.''-'  In  <S7/;//  r.  Great  JVort/icni  Ifdilmn/ 
C'oiiijHiiii/,'''  tiie  I'cgular  practice  in  ri'spect  to  the  receipt 
and  carriage  of  gooils  and  cattle  on  a  railway  was  that  the 
i-atth'  were  taken  to  a  porter  appointed  for  the  purpose, 
who  "cceived  them  and  gave  the  sender  a  consignment  note 
for  them,  which  was  signed  by  him  and  the  sender,  and 
contained  a  notici;  respecting  tlie  receii)t,  carriage  and  de- 
livery of  the  goods  ;  tluit  the  eompany  would  not  be  ac- 
countable for  any  arti(  es  unless  signed  for  as  received  by 
their  clerks  or  agents.  The  consignment  note  was  taken  to 
the  goods  clerk,  who  matle  out  from  it  a  cattle  ticket,  which 
was  signed  by  him  and  the  sender,  and  handed  to  the  latter 
as  his  voucher  for  the  delivery  of  the  cattle  at  their  destina- 
tion. Carriage  was  generally  but  not  always  preitaid.  The. 
plaintiff  being  well  uc<piainted  with  this  practice,  booked 
some  ))igs  in  the  regular  way  at  one  of  the  company's  sta- 
tions, and  while  they  were  waiting  there  he  sent  six  other 
j)igs  by  L,  who  had  also  some  of  his  own.  L  booked  hi- 
own  regularly,  and  told  the  i)roper  porter  that  the  six  were 
the  plaintiff's  and  were  to  go  with  his  others.  The  i)orter 
repruHl  tliiit  he  would  take  care  of  them,  and  put  them  with 
the  others.  No  consignment  note  or  cattle  ticket  was 
signed    or   received   for  them.      It   was   held   in   an    action 


•■«  H.iiToiij-hs  V.  Nonvicli  lU'.U.  ('(•.,  100  Mass.  ■.»(!  (18(JS). 

'■'  U  r.  15.  (;i7:  •_>  ('.  L.  If.  St>t:  IS  Jiir.  lilt);  ■_»;{  L.  .1..  (  .  1'.  IOC.   (lS.-)4). 


m 
i 

ft!.'!  I 

M 


m 


> 


i 


\'-> 


H'66 


THE  CONTRACTS  OP  CAHHIKIJS. 


[cn.  X. 


agiiinst  the  company  for  tho  non-dol ivory  of  the  i)i,irs, 
(•hari!:in_ir  them  with  haviiijr  roci'ivoii  thom  to  he  carried  for 
hire,  that  tlic  company  was  not  liable,  as  there  was  no  evi- 
dence of  any  authority  from  the  company  to  the  porter  or 
of  his  haviniT  held  himself  out  as  haviiiii'  authority  to  i-e- 
ceive  or  contract  lor  the  Citrria_<re  of  the  pius  in  any  other 
than  the  usual  manner, 

§  2;12.  Acts  of  Aficiit  When  Xot  Blii'lnKj. —  In  Mdrklin. 
V.  WalcvlidHse'''^  it  was  ruled  that  the  carrier's  aiicnl  telliiiu- 
the  female  servant  of  the  owner  of  a  parcel  ahove  the  value 
of  £;")  that  it  oujrht  to  he  insured  was  not  a  sutiicient  notice 
of  the  limitation  of  the  carrier's  responsibility.  So  in  a 
case  in  this  country  where  the  ajreiit  of  a  railroad  uave  a 
receijjt  containiui!:  an  exception  auainst  tire,  and  the  person 
to  whom  it  was  <jfiven  said  that  he  did  not  like  that  clause, 
and  the  auent  toUi  him  that  it  did  not  matter,  that  the  car- 
riers were  liable  notwitlistandin<r  what  they  wrote  in  that 
Wily,  it  was  held  that  the  exception  was  <::ood.  It  appeared 
that  tho  ajrent  was  only  expressiiiir  his  opinion  of  the  law, 
as  to  which  he  was  mistaken,  and  that  the  owner  of  the 
•joods  know  that  the  a<>ent  had  no  authority  to  contract  for 
sendiiii!:  them  without  an  a«rroement  containinu'  the  excep- 
tion apiinst  tire.'" 

§  2/JH.  Ex/jt'ess,  For  ward  fur/  oml  Dispofr/i  Cotiipdin't's. — 
It  has  l)een  attomi)ted  on  tho  part  of  exi)ress,  forwardiuir 
and  dispalcii  comi)ahies  to  oval"  the  responsibilities  of  eoiu- 
mon  carriers,  on  the  <;round  that  tlu'V  are  not  the  owners 
of  the  vehicles  employed  in  the  trans[)ortatiou  ;  but  this  pre- 
tense has  not  been  pei'initled  in  tho  courts,  'i'he  names 
which  they  assume  are  rejrarded  as  immaterial  ;  the  duties 
which  they  undertake  beiui;  the  criterion  of  their  liability. 
T'loy  aiv,  therefore,  held  to  tho  responsibility  of  common 
carriers,  both  where  they  are  and  whei-o  they  are  not  in- 
terested in  the  convevances  by  which   the  iroods  are  trans- 


■-■  I'l'intxMtou  Co.  V.  New  York,  &.v.  \{.  ('o..*I04  Miiss,  141  (1870). 


€11.  X.] 


rOWEIiS  OV  AdKNTS. 


337 


ported/'"  If  an  cx])ro-<s  coinpiuiy  enpiiiod  to  transport 
<»'o()ds  sends  them  bv  a  railroad  coniijanv  eniMloved  by  it  to 
perform  tlu>  serviee,  the  railroad  (•oin[)aii_v  becomes  the  agent 

.•«;.. 'I'lioi-c  iir<M!on«i(lorat inn-;  jiislilyiii^- a  strict  applicatio;!  of  the  law 
of    coiniiioii   cai'fioi-s   to   oxjirrss  foniMaiiics.     'I'licy  pi'ofcss  to  ("iiiploy 
trusty  a.iii'iits.  wlio  ai'c  cliaij^-'d  with  tlii'  safe  custody  and  speedy  ti'ansit 
and  delivery  of  all  i)ai'kajfes  put  in  their  ehary,'e.    Tho  effect  of  these 
indiicciMents  is  in  some  inea-:iii'e  to  sni)ei'sodc  the  forwai'dinj;  inerehant 
and  to  limit  the  liahilily  ot  raih'oad  :ind  steamlioat  companies,  who  may 
be  as  faithful,  and  are  eerlaiidy  as  re-ponsihle  agents.     If   thev  shall 
by  the  ])romise  of  decided  advanta;;es  over  the  usual  modes  of  transpor- 
tation seciu'e  most  of  the  business  f^enerally  intrusted  to  common  car- 
riers the  public  is  conc(>rned  that  they  should  be  held  to  a  rigid  fnllil- 
inent  of  the  pronuse.    'I'iiey  can  not  attain  a  greater  speed  than  the  rail- 
road or  steamboat  w  liieh  conveys  tbem.  and  tb<  "e  is  no  proof  tbat  tliey 
are  in  otlier  respects  more  trustworthy.    'J"he  oidy  advantage  wliicli  in 
truth  they  can  offer  is  the  safer  custody  and  more  certain  delivery  of  the 
goods  to  the  consignee  wllbont  storage.     Tliese  temptations  may  induce 
the  public  to  enijjlov  tliem  at  :>n  increased  rate,  and  they  have  no  reason 
to  complain  of  an  exact  application  ()f  the  rule  of  law  v.hich  enforces 
tiie   responsibility   which  tliey  voluntarily  assume.     "We  should  lie  re- 
gardless of  the  great  interests  daily  coniniitte(l  by  the  public  to  the  ex- 
press companies  with  a  conlidi'nce  induced  by  their  tempting  offers  if 
their  liability  for  the  s;ite  carriage  and  delivery  is  not  vigorously  en- 
forced."'      StadliecKer  V.    Combs.  !)    IJicli.  1!);!   (lS,")i;).     ••The  name  or 
style  iindei'  which  they  a><umt'  to  cicry  is  wholly  iimnaterial.     The  real 
nature  of  tl  eir  occupation  and  of  the  legal  duties  and  ol)ligations  which 
it  imposes  (  ii  them  is  to  be  ascertained  fiom  a  consideration  of  tlie  kind 
of  service  whic'u  they  hold  themselves  out  to  the  public  as  ready  to  ren- 
der to  those  who  may  have  occasion  to  employ  them.     I'pon  this  point 
there  is  no  room  fordoubt.  They  exercise  the  employnuMit  of  receiving, 
carrying  and  delivering  goods,  wares  and  merchiindise  bu-  liire  on  behalf 
of  all  persons  who  may  see  lit  to  reiiuire  their  services.    In  this  cajiacity 
they  take  jn-operty  from  the  custody  of  the  owner,  iissmne  entire  control 
of  it.  traie^port  it  frcun  pbtcc  to  phu'c  and  deliver  it  at   a  point   of  desti- 
nation to  some  consignee  or  agent  there  authori/.ed  to  receive  it.     Hut  it 
is  urged  on  behalf  of  the  dcfe^danls  that   they  ought   not  to  be  held  to 
tile  strict  lialiility  of  a  common  carrier.  f(U'  the  rea^^on  that  the  contract 
of  carriage  is  essentially  inodilie(l  by  the  ;icculi;ir  mode  in  which  de- 
fendants undertake  the  performance  of  ti.csci\ni'.     'I"he  main  ground 
on  wliich  this  argument  rests  is  that  i)ersons  exercising  the  emi)loyment 
of  express  carriers  or  messengers  over  rail'/oads  and  l)y  steainboiits  can 
not,  from  tin;  very  nature  of  the  case,  exercise  any  care  or  I'ontrol  over 
the  means  of  lransportati(Ui  wliich  they  are  obliged  to  adopt;  tb;it  Ihecar- 
riiiges  and  boats  in  wliich  the  merchatidise  intrusted  to  them  is  placed 
and  the  agents  or  serviints  by  whom  they  arc  selected,  are  not  mamiged 
by  theili  nor  snl)jeet  to  their  direction  or  suitervislon,  and  thai  the  rules 
22 


IVi'iS 


THK  CONTUACTS  OK  CAIJIMKIiS. 


[ 


ClI.  X. 


m   i 


if^. 


k 


() 


f  the 


ox[)r('ss  compiiny. 


ml  the  lattor  is  liiil)lc  to  t\w  t'oii- 


dh 

^H 

i   5' 

1 

;  H 

i 

1  ^H 

1 

i'!^^ 

sijiiior  for  it; 


a•l^ 


III   llirxjii'ld  r,  Adiniis^'''^  cxprcs.snn' 


of  tilt'  ('oiniiHMi  liiw  I't'jiiiliiliiij;'  llic  iliiiii's  and  lialiiliiifs  of  (■oniinon  car- 
I'itTs  liaviii;;'  hccii  adaplcil  to  a  diffcrt'iit  iiKidc  of  coiMliiclinj:  ini>:in('ss  hy 
wliicli  tlic  carritT  was  ciialdod  to  sclccl  his  own  scrviuits  and  vcliiclcs 
and  to  t'xt'ifisc  a  personal  care  and  ovcrsijjlit  over  tlicni.  ari'  wliolly  in- 
appli('al)lc  to  a  contract  of  carilaj;!'  I»y  whicli  it  is  understood  between 
the  parties  thai  ihe  service  is  to  l)e  performed  in  pait  at  least  hy  means 
of  ajjencies  over  whii-h  tin-  carrier  can  exerci>e  no  management  or  con- 
trol whatever.  IJiit  this  ar;;iiment.  thouffji  sjiecioiis,  i.s  nnsoimd.  Its 
fallacy  consists  in  the  assinnplion  that  iit  common  law.  in  the  a1);U'nei'  of 
express  slipulaiion.  the  coiiira''l  wiih  an  ownei-  or  consi;;nor  of  <idods 
delivered  to  a  carrier  for  transpoi'lalion  necessarily  implies  that  they  are 
to  he  carried  by  the  parly  with  u  lii'in  the  I'oniraci  is  made  oi-  by  the  ser- 
vants oi'  a^i'M's  under  his  imniediale  direi-lion  and  control.  JJnt  such  is 
not  the  inideilakinn"  of  the  caniei-.  'I'he  essence  of  the  contract  is  tliat 
the  ijoods  are  to  he  carried  lo  their  destination,  unless  the  fnllilment  of 
this  miderlaUiuii- is  prevented  l>y  the  act  of  (iod  or  Ihe  public  enemy. 
'I'hls.  indeed,  is  the  wlude  contract,  wiiether  the  goods  are  K,  be  carried 
liy  land  or  water,  by  the  carrier  inmstdf  or  hy  agents  employed  by  him. 
The  contract  does  not  imply  a  personal  tru>i  which  can  be  executed  only 
by  the  contrai'ting  party  himself  or  under  his  supervision  by  agents  and 
means  of  trausi>ortation  directly  and  al>solutely  \\ithin  his  control. 
Long  befoi-e  the  discovery  of  steam  i)ower  a  carrier  who  undertook  lo 
convey  mer(  handise  from  one  ])oint  to  another  was  auih<n'i/,eil  to  per- 
form the  service  through  agents  exercising  an  independent  employuieiit 
whi"h  they  carried  on  by  the  use  of  their  own  vehicles  and  under  Ihe  ex- 
clusive care  of  their  own  servaiils.  It  certainly  never  was  supposed  that 
a  fterson  who  agreed  to  carry  goods  from  one  place  to  another  by  means 
of  wagons  or  stages  could  esi'aix-  liability  for  the  safe  carriage  of  the 
(iroperty  over  a!i_\  i)arl  of  the  designated  route  by  showing  thai  ihe  loss 
had  haiipeue<l  at  a  lime  when  the  goods  were  placed  by  bim  in  vehicles 
which  he  did  not  own.  or  which  were  uuiler  liie  charge  of  agent.-  whom 
ho  did  nol  select  or  control.  The  ti'iilh  is  that  the  particular  mode  or 
agency  by  which  ihe  service  is  to  lie  performed  doc-,  n.t  enter  iiilo  the 
contract  of  carriage  with  Ihe  owner  or  consignor."  lliicklaiid  v.  .'idanis 
ICxpress  ('()..  !I7  Mass.  121  (lS(i7).  and  see  ('hristciixui  v.  American  Ex- 
press Co..  15  Minn.  270  (1870):  Lowell  Aire  Fence  Co.  v.  Sargent,  S 
Allen.  1S!I  (ISCt):  Sherman  v.  Wells.  28  Harl).  !();{  (isr.S;;  Haldwin  v. 
American  Express  Co..  2;{  III.  IIt7  (IS.'ili);  Kead  v.  Spaiilding.  ."»  Hosw. 
:{!)r)  (18;")!)):  llaslam  v.  Adams  Lxi>ress  Co.,  0  iJosw.  2;!.")  (iStUi) :  Swcel 
V.  Barney,  2:$  X.  Y.  :;;{.">  (LSOl) :  Verner  v.  Sweilzer.  :')2  I'a.  St.  21)8 
(LS."»8) :  Soutiiern  Lxjiress  Co.  v.  Xewby,  :i(;  (;a.  (!:{.")  (iMu). 

"'  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Adams  Lx|)ress  Co., '.»;{  l".  S.  17L  4  Cent.  L.  .L 
;{5  (187(1),  reversing  «.  o..  1  Coiit.  L.  J.  4;{(5  (1874)  ;  Hoskowit/  v.  Adams 
Express  Co.,  5  Cent.  L.  J.  58  (1887).  s.  c,  0  Cent.  L.  .L:Wit  (1879). 

»  10  Barb.  577  (1855). 


"ir.  X. 


CH.  X.] 


I'KNVKIIS  OV  AOKNTS. 


;5;}!) 


(Mij^auocl  in  forwiirtliiiu'  uoods  from  New  York  io  Ctiliforniii 
Uy  otluTs'  bouts  iuul  vessels,  nHcivcd  two  tniiiUs  of  uoods 
to  1)0  tnuispoi'tccl,  colli nicting  to  Ixi  lijilde  for  no  loss  cx- 
c't'[)l  fntiu  the  fraiu!  or  uross  neuiiirciu'c  of  tlicnisclvcs  or 
tlieir  servants,  ami  the  ;roods  were  iniurecl  hvltlie  siiikinu'  of 
a  boat  in  the  Chaures  river,  and  exainined  by  survi'vors  and 
sold  at  auetioii  The  Sui)reine  Court  of  New  York  held 
that  the  ex[)rcssiueii  were  not  liable  fordainagi's  previous  to 
the  sijdiins;  of  the  boat,  and  were  not  ijuiltv  of  "toss  ne<ili- 
i>-eiH'(!  in  not  forwardiiijr  the  dainaired  goods  to  California, 
the  eaj)tai!i  of  the;  boat  as  a  eomiuon  earrier  having  control 
of  the  goods  when  in  his  possession.  iSo  far  as  this  ciise 
assumes  that  the  defendants  were  not  common  carriers  it  is 
in  couHict  with  the  authorities  and  has  been  criticized  and 
condemned  in  the  Sttite  where  ii  was  decide('/"'  In  Head  v. 
Sj)(iiddi)i(j,  a  subsecjuent  New  York  case,**"  a  i)erson  doing 
business  under  the  style  of  "  Spaulding's  Express  Freight 
Line,"  reec^ived  goods  to  be  forwarded  to  the  [dace  named, 
and  in  the  bill  of  lading  it  was  provided  that  all  property 
••  will  l)e  d(diver(;d  at  the  depots  of  the  company  or  steam- 
l)oat  landing,"  and  tliat  no  liability  for  deticienc}'^  in  the 
packages  should  exist  "  if  the  goods  were  delivered  at  tlie 
depot  in  good  order;"  and  by  the  stipulations  in  regard  to 
freight  it  api)(>ared  that  compensation  was  to  be  made  to  the 
ilefendanl  for  transportation  over  the  whole  line.  It  was 
held  that  such  party  so  contracting  was  a  cronnnon  carrier, 
and  not  a  forwards  r  merely.  kSo  in  a  California  ease  a  re- 
ceipt given  by  an  express  company  was  in  this  form:  "  In 
no  event  to  be  liable  beyond  our  route  as  lierein  receipted. 
It  is  further  agreed  and  is  part  of  the  consideration  of  this 
contract  that  ^V.  F.  &,  Co.  are  not  to  be  responsible  except 
as  forwarders,  nor  for  any  loss  or  danuige  iirising  from  the 
dangers  of  railroad,  ocean  or  river  navigation,  tire,  etc., 
unless  specially  insured  by  theni,  and  so  specitied  in  this  re- 
s'Place  V  Union  Exi)i('ss  Co..  2  Hilt.  10  (185S) ;  Read  v.  Spaulding.  5 
Bosw.  im  (IS.-)!)).  ».  c.,:H)  N.  Y.  6:U)  (181U). 
*'  5  IJosw.  ;{!),•)  (1S50),  atHnued  30  N.  Y.  (330  (18G4). 


340 


TIIK  C'ONTKACTS  OK  CAIMUKKS. 


[ni 


t;    1 


<'('i[)l."*  It  w,is  liolil  \\v\l  il  WMs  not  the  Iriic  coiisinictiou  of 
tlic  ivci^pl  ili;i1  tlio  express  ((nupjiny  should  he  (liscli;ii''i'('(l 
from  lia'hilily  for  Ids,-  citu.-eti  liy  ihe  nculiu'cncc  of  the  oili- 
(•(>rs  of  a  ".essel  (Miij)loyc(l  l)y  (he  cxpi't'ss  conipanv  lo  Irans- 
poi't  [hv  i2oo!is  I'.aiiu'ii  ill  tlie  roceijit."  Pmt  (lie  case  of 
lia)ik  of  Kcnturhi/  v.  Ada  oik  h'.rpiTSK  ('ojupdiii/,^'-  is  a  rc- 
ccnl  and  coiiclusivo  adjudication  on  lliis  i)oin1.  The  do- 
feiidauts  and  tiic  SoutluM-ii  Express  ("oni))any  were  associated 
in  earryinu'  Ity  the  railroads  throuu-h  Louisiana  and  Missis- 
sippi to  Iluniholdl,  Tenn.,  and  thence  over  tlie  LouisviUe 
and  Nashville  Hailroad  to  Louisvl'lo,  Kv.,  under  a  contract 
l)y  which  they  divided  the  compensation  in  proportion  to 
the  distance  the  article  was  transported  by  each  respect- 
ive.ly.  Between  I^umholdt,  Tenn.  and  Louisville,  Ky.,  both 
companies  employed  the  same  messenirer,  I)Ut  this  messen- 
jjer,  south  of  the  northern  boundary  of  the  State  of  Tcn- 
n(>ssee,  was  subject  entirely  to  the  orders  of  the  Soutliei'n 
Express  Company  and  north  of  that  boundary  was  subject 
entirely  to  tlie  ordei-s  of  the  Adams  Express  Company.  On 
the  l?(ith  of  July.  l-Sl!?,  the  Southern  Express  (\)mpany  re- 
ceived from  the  Louisiana  National  liank  at  New  ()rl(>ans 
two  packaj»-es,  one  containin^j:  SL'JjO^S.l.')  for  delivery  to  the 
liank  of  Kentucky  at  Louisville,  and  the  other  containing- 
$;5()()0  for  delivery  to  the  Phmters'  National  Baidc  at  Louis- 
ville. The  receipt  v.hich  i)rovided  that  its  conditions  should 
inure  to  the  benetit  of  any  snccoedinLT  carriei"  reU^ased  the 
conii)any  from  liability  for  any  loss  or  damaixe  occasioned 
by  lire.  The  jjackaires  were  transjjorted  to  Ilumltoldt  and 
there  delivered  to  the  messenjrcr  of  the  defendants,  who 
placed  tliein  in  an  iron  safe  which  Avas  deposited  in 
a  <■;;)'  of  the  railroad.  l>efore  reachinir  Louisville  the 
train  was  thrown  from  the  track,  tlu;  express  car  caui:ht 
lire,  and  tlie  money  was  destroyed.  On  the  trial  the 
circuit  jud^e,  IVuj.aijd,  J.,  instructed  the  jury  that  the 
'U'Sli'jrence    of  liic    servants   of   tlie  railroad    was  not    ma- 

^|  lIocp.T  V.  Wr]].-.  27  ('ill.  1!  (l<-(il). 
'-'.1.!  r.  s.  171.  I  r  n;.  i..  J.  ,:■  n87!). 


•II.  x. 


(II.    X.J 


roWKKS  or  AGKNTS. 


a4i 


teriiil  ;  lliiil  if  llic  piK'Uaji'cs  uci*'  (k'stiovcil  l)v  lii'*-  with- 
out any  raiilt  of  the  di't'ciKlniits*  im'.s.>-i'ii;i('r,  the  case  was 
hroiiohi  within  tiio  exception  oi  the  ))ill  of  huliii^-,  and  the 
defendants  were  not  lialde.''  The  Supreme  Court  of  Iho 
Tnited  Slates  Ix-fore  which  thi'  case  was  suhseijuently 
hrouiiht  were  of  a  different  oi)iiiion.  *'  With  tliis  I'uiinjr," 
said  Mr.  .Justice  Si  itoxc,  »•  we  are  untihU'  to  concur.  The 
railroad  company  in  transportiuu"  the  messenu'ei"  of  the  de- 
fendants iind  t!ie  express  matter  in  his  charge,  was  the  agent 
of  soniehody,  eillier  of  the  expri'ss  compan\'  or  of  tlie 
siiippers  or  consijiuecs  of  the  property.  That  it  was  the 
aireut  of  tlie  defendants  is  (luire  clear.  Jt  was  employed  by 
them  and  paid  by  them.  The  service  it  was  called  upon  to 
perform  was  a  service  for  the  defendants,  a  duty  incumhiMit 
u|ion  them,  and  ih-l  upon  the  plaintiffs,  'I'he  latter  had 
nothini;;  to  do  with  the  employujent.  It  was  neither  di- 
rected by  them  nor  had  they  any  control  over  the  railroad 
com|)any  or  its  eni|)loy«'es.  It  is  true  the  defendants  j^had 
also  no  control  ovei' ''ie  com))auy  or  its  servants;  but  they 
were  its  employers,  presumably  they  paitl  for  its  service, 
:uid  that  service  was  directly  and  immediately  for  tluun. 
Control  of  the  conduct  of  an  auency  is  not  in  all  cases  es- 
sential to  liability  for  the  couseciuences  of  that  conduct.  If 
any  one  is  to  be  affected  by  the  atts  or  omissions  of  pc^rsous 
em[)Ioyed  to  do  a  jiarticular  service,  surely  it  must  be  he 
who  i;:ave  the  employment.  'Iheir  acts  become  his,  beciiusc 
done  in  his  service  and  by  his  direction.  Moreover  a  i-oni- 
mou  carrier  wiio  uridertakes  foi-  himself  to  perform  an  i-n- 
tire  >-ervice  has  no  authority  to  ct)nstitute  anotlu'r  |)erson  or 
corjioration  tiie  au'iMil  of  his  consignor  or  consig-nee.  He 
may  employ  a  sul»ordinate  agency  ;  but  it  must  be  subordi- 
nate to  him,  and  not  to  one  who  neither  emj)l()ys  il  nor  pays 
it.  nor  has  anv  risz'ht  to  interfce  with  it."" 


<'  1  (.'.■111.  1...).  j;5i;  (i.srt). 


;m: 


IIIK  CONTKACTf*  OF  CAlJIMKIts. 


[•'It.   XI. 


i^m 


CHAI'TICK  XI. 


(ONNECTINO  CAUUIKKS. 

SKCTION. 

'I'M.  Carriiigo  Boyonrl  ("iirrior's  l.'or.tt'. 

2;{5.  Power  to  Contnu't  to  Carry  Him,  oiul  His  Hoiitc. 

:.':iii.  IJifilit  lo  I.imil  His  HosponsiMilty  lo  His  Own  |{«>nic. 

•jar.  Hill  Still  I,i;il)l('  ill  Somo  Cases, 

'J:18.  Wlinl  Kvidciii'i' (i|  ("outract  for 'rhrongli  'rraiispiiii.iiion 

•Jlii).  Tlic  Eii-ilisli  Hoctriii.-. 

'2\().  'I'lic  American  l)<H'iriiu'. 

•-Ml.  Wliich  Carri(>r  May  bo  Sued. 

21'J.  (.'oiistnictioii  ol  S|i(>cial  Coiiiracls. 

•2A'.\.  When  ('oniioctin;;-  Currier  May  Claim  Kxeniptions  in  I'l 

tract. 

•Jt).  When  Kxceinions  in  <'ontraet  With  First  Carrier  do  Sv\ 

Connei'tln<r  Carrier. 


r-il   ('on- 
ICnnre  to 


^  2o4.  Corn'ofjc  lioi/onil  (^avvlers  lioiitr. —  In  tho  Iraiis- 
portation  of  jxoods  v\v\\  to  jioints  not  far  distant  it  i.s  not 
always  i)ossil)lo  to  hav(>  the  duty  ixM-fornicd  by  only  ono 
carrier.  The  first  c'arri<M'  is  fr<'(]U('ntly  al)I('  to  perform  tlie 
service  hut  in  part,  and  is  forced  to  rely  upon  others  in  the 
sante  business  and  whos(>  lii\es  extend  heyond  his  own  to 
c<)nii)lete  the  carriaoc  which  he  has  coininenced.  The  line 
of  a  railroad  company  <^xtends  from  A  to  li.  At  IJ  another 
roiid  heoins  which  extends  to  (\  A  shipper  at  A  desires  to 
ha\'e  ijoods  sent  to  C  and  deliveis  them  to  the  compapv 
Avhose  line  conimences  at  A.  for  that  purpose.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  latter  in  cntcnMnu"  into  this  contraci  may  iix-ur  two 
liabilities   at    its   option — it   may   bind   itself  to   can-y   tlie 


r.  XI. 


€ir.  XI.] 


CONNKrTFNd  C.MJKlKrjS. 


84.*] 


snoods  to  (' «'iii|)l()yin;i' the  second  (oiiipuny  as  its  ii^ciit  to 
perform  llie  service  from  H  to  (',  or  it  may  agree  simply 
lo  do  wlnit  it  is  hound  to  d(  cany  them  to  H,  and  at  that 
p(»int,  as  the  agent  of  the  siiipper,  (U'liver  them  to  the  sec- 
ontl  road  to  l>e  carried  to  their  (h'stination.  'I'here  heing 
then  this  option  it  lias  heconie  a  (piestion  of  much  interest 
and  one  upon  which  there  has  heen  consitlerahle  discussion, 
whether  under  the  circumstances  of  particular  cases,  a  car- 
rier should  l)e  held  responsihle  for  the  goods  intrusted 
to  him  during  the  whole  transportation  or  until  they  are 
<lelivercd  at  their  Hnal  destination,  although  this  he  a  point 
hcAond  th((  limits  of  his  route,  or  whether  on  the  other 
hand,  having  shown  that  he  had  i)laced  then)  in  good  order 
in  the  hands  of  aconnecting  carrier,  his  responsihility  should 
he  considered  as  terminating  at  that  point. 

§  •2'M'>,  I'oii'cr  to  (  'oii/riii-/  /i)  Cany  Jiri/oiid  his  Jfonfc — 
A  conunon  carrier  has  jjowci-  to  make  a  contract  to  carry  lo 
a  i)lace  heyond  tlu'  terminus  of  his  route  and  to  render  him- 
self liahle  as  such  for  the  whole  tlistauce.  All  comiecting 
cari'iers  in  such  case  become  his  ajicnts  for  whose  ueuiiirences 
or  oth(!r  defaults  he  is  responsihle,  and  h('  has  no  more 
power  to  evade  l)y  contract  the  conse(|uenees  of  their  negli- 
gence than  h«^  ca,ii  the  results  of  his  own.  It  is  also  well 
settled  that  the  contract  of  a  corporation  to  carry  beyond 
its  own  lini^  is  not  id/ra  r//r.s'.  It  may  accept  goods  to  be 
delivered  not  only  at  a  i)lace  outside  the  limits  within  which 
it  is  chartered  to  do  business  but  even  outside  the  State  or 
country  of    its   creation."      Such    an    undertaking   may   l)e 

iRcdlit'ld  on  Carriers  §(}l!)()-lf)7;  Briccon  Ultra  Vii-ps  ((Jivcirsod).  A]*]). 
III.  p.  ('.r:^  Tlicn-  is  so  little  dissent  from  tiiis  doctrine  tiiat  I  liave 
tliouf^iit  it  iinneeessitry  tocile  tiie  eases  wliicli  declare  it.  all  of  wliieli  may 
be  found  in  tlie  two  text  l)o.>ksa1iove.  'l"liesinfi;lo  exception  to  tli)«  array 
of  antliority  is  llie  Conneeticnt  ease  of  Hood  v.  New  York  «!te.  I{.  Co. 
2'2  Conn.  .".02  (1S.">:{)  of  wliieli  M\:  Keillield  says:  -The  ease  is  not  at- 
tempted to  !)•■  maintained  npon  tlie  l)asis  of  antliority  lint  njion  ju.-it 
principles,  slio\vin<i'  tlierefroni  tlie  innate  want  of  antliority  in  the  eoin- 
pany.  It  ninst  i)e  acimitted  the  reasoning  is  siieeions:  so  ])laiisal)le  in- 
deed that  if  tlie  matter  were  altoifetliei- jr.'.' !?(^'.7rcf.  it  niij;lit  he  deemed 
sound." 


Ihi 


341 


iiiK  coNTijAcis  oi'  <'ai;i:iI';i:m. 


[Ch.    M, 


('stal»lisli('(l  l)v  t'xpicss  coiitriK  I  or  by  evidence  lluit  llie  e,ii- 
riiT  held  hiiiiseir  out  as  m  ediiiiiioii  eiiiriti-  for  (lie  entire  dis- 
tiiiice,  or  otiiei'  eii'eunistance-'  indi'Mlinii'  an  understandin;.' 
lliat  llie  eontraet  was  lor  (liroiiuli  lraii>|ioi(alioM.-'  W'liere 
a  carrier  has  contracted  for  tlie  carr\in,u'  of  iroods  ovi'r 
another  line  lievond  his  route  a  stipidation  that  liis  ri'sponsi- 
hility  is  to  tei  iiiinate  at  the  end  of  his  own  line  will  he  of 
no  effect.' 

^  2i5(!.  Itliilil  to  hi  mil  }iit<  lifftjKiiiHihllilif  h)  liin  nirn 
Ji'oiifr. —  llin  the  law  does  luit  recniire  a  coninion  cari'i»T  to 
transport  Ix'vond  his  own  line,  and  he  niay.  thrrefore,  stipu- 
late that  he  shall  not  he  liaide  for  any  loss  or  dania;^'e 
except  such  as  may  occur  on  his  own  route  —  in  othiT 
words  he  may  undertake  simply  to  deliver  tin-  ii'(»ods  to  the 
connect iuii' carrier  —  in  which  event  his  liability  will  eeaso 
with  such  delivery,  he  haxinu'  done  all  either  the  law  or  his 
airreement  requires  him  to  do.' 

-'  {{(Mil  V.  (ileal  \V(-l.Tii  I!.  Co..  W,  N.  V.  .■>•-' f  (jsri'. 

•■  riiicimiaii  i'v:c.  1{.  Tu.  v.  Puniiiis.  I'.inliid  si.  -J-Ji  (isCii);  (•((luiict  v. 
<Jraiul  Trunk  1{.  Cn.. .")(  \.  V.  :)(Mi  (is;;'.;. 

•  KailfnatlCn.  V.  AiKln.MM.iiMiii  .MilN. -J-J  Wall.  .".Ill  (IS7»):  HailioaiK '(•. 
V.  l*rall.-J2  111.  l'.>;i  (Is7i);  MiiHi-aMV.  Illiimi- 1{.  ( '(...  :i(i  Iowa.  lS()(|S7;t); 
IJal)c()ck  V.  I.akf  Slmiv  K.  Co..  I!)  N.  Y.  litl  (1S72);  .•>.  r.  CS  llow.  I'v.  ;!17 
(l,s7-i);  .Ktna  Iii>.  ( 'o.  v.  Wlic.'lcr.  Id.  CIC,  (lS7-_') :  .Vniciicaa  I^xprcss  (^'o. 
V.  Wi'coiid  Nalioiial  JJaiik.  (;!»  I'a.  SI.  :{!l|  (IS7I);  Iti'cd  v.  I'liilfit  Stales 
Kxprcss  Co..  48  \.  Y.  4(i2  (1S72):  I.aiiih  v.CaiiKlcii  P..  Co.,  1(1  1(1.271 
(1S71);  Hall  v.Vorlli  Kastcni  J{.  (  n..  L.  U.  10  (i- H.  i;i7  ( IK7.-)) :  111. Out. 
|{.('().  V.  FranktMiliiTiLi:. .")!  Ill.SS  (s70) ;  C'iiiciniiali  iSic.  |{.  Co.  v.  Poiitius. 
r.»<)liioSl.-J21  (IMI!));  IJnrn.n.ulis  v.  Norwicli  UA  .»..  KHI  Mass.  2(1  (I.SU.S) : 
llinklfy  V.  N'l'w  York  < 'cat.  K.  C(>..:i 'I',  i^i  C.  ^.-d  {ls7l);  St.  I.oiiis  t>;;c.  1{. 
Co.  v.  fipt  r.  i:{  K  as.  .")().•)  (1S7I):  Aldriiluc  v.Crcat  Wcstcni  !{.('(...  l.'.C. 
n.  (\.S.)  .".82  (IsC-l) ;  Fowlcsv.Crcal  Wesi.Tii  R.Co..  7  Kxcli.  (l!i!>  (is.")2); 
Kent  V.  .Midland  |{.Co..L.  K.  KKi.  H.  1  (IS7-I):  Martin  \ .  Anifi  lean  Ex- 
press Co..  1!)  Wis.  ;{:;(;  (1S(m):  Oakey  v.  (Jordon.  7  I.a.  Ann.  2:iri  (IS.J2) ; 
Sullivan  v. Thompson.!!!)  Mass.  2r>!t  ( iSdS) ;  Wiiheek  v.  llullaiid..">.">  Marl). 
•14;$  (1870);  l'eiKler<iast  v.  Adain<  Express  Co..  I(»l  Mass.  120  (ISO!)); 
IVniI)orlonCo.  v.  New  Y<.rk  U.  Co..  101  Id.  IK  (Is70);  Walil  v.  Holt,  20 
Wis.  70;i(1870);  Mi.riarly  v.  llanideirs  Kxpre-s.  1  Daly.  227  (18(12): 
Cnilod  Slates  Kx.  Co.  v.  l!iisli.2t  Ind.io;!  (ISli.'i)  ;  CIiica,u-i>  \c.  II.  Co.  v. 
Montfort.(J0lll.l7r)(l871):  Ma-^hee  v.Canulen  l{.  Co-.L^.N.  Y..M4  (1871); 
St.  John  v.  Express  Co..  1  Woods.  (;1.">  (1871):  nieketi-;  v.  Halliinore  Ac. 
J{.Co.,4  Lans.  41(;(187I):  .v. '..CI  IJarl).  18  (1871):  Caiiulen  I'ie.  K.Co.  v. 


M, 


<  II.   M. 


(■ONNKC'lINd   CAKKIKUS. 


Mr> 


§  '2'M .  liiil  SHU  Llahlf  In  Sninr  (Jiisrn. — tiiif  iililiou;.'!! 
wluTc  II  I'oiiiiiioii  earlier  rcci'ivcs  jioods  iiiiilcj'  an  a;j:rc('iii('ii( 
which  alisolvcs  iiiiii  from  all  icspoii^ihilily  for  iciss  or  daiii- 
aiit"  occurring'  lu'Voiitl  tlic  ciid  of  liis  own  route,  the  lial»ilitv 
of  the  carrier  leriiiiiiales  wiieii  he  has  delivered  the  jroods 
into  the  custody  (d"  tlu-  next  earrieroii  the  line,''  his  liaMlity 
will  not  1m'  tei'ininaled  tiy  |)laciii!j;  the  i/oods  carried  in  a 
depot  used  hy  him  and  a  coime<liii!j;"  road  in  coinnidn  ;  hut 
il  nnisl  he  sh.>wn  thai  tiny  were  placed  on  the  platfoi'in  of 
the  e()nnectin«.'"  company,  oi'  had  heeii  in  some  manner  uiveii 
over  to  il."  lie  will  still  Ix-  lialile  for  iiejiliii'ence  for  failinj; 
t<»  deli\('r  the  u(>o<ls  to  the  coiuieclin!::  »'arrier  with  reasona- 
lile  «lispatch,  '  and  likewise  for  any  injury  which  occurs  he- 
\i)n(l  his  route  throu'^h  his  own  iie<ile<'t,  as  hv  furnishin''" 
tiefect  ive  cars." 

J)  I'.'iS.  Wliiit  h'ritfnirr  of  Contidrf  for  'rhvoinjji  (Jdi'vi- 
(iifc. — The  Kn^iiiisli  judj^cs,  and  a  majority  of  the  American 
courts,  differ  on  the  (piestion  as  to  what  is  to  ';e  considered 
sullicieiit  to  constitute  a  contract  hy  a  common  carrier  to 
transport  property  entrusted  }o  him  to  its  destination,  when 
that  point  is  heyoiid  his  route.  On  the  one  liaiul,  it  is 
said  that  where  a  carrier  receives  lioods  directed  to  a  place 
heyond  his  line  lie,  by  the  very  a"t  of  acceptance,  en<iai>rs 
t(t  deliver  it  at  its  destination,  whei'cver  that  nniy  l)e.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  acceptance  of  such  a  parcel  or  other 
propei'ty,  so  directed,  is  consid(>re(l  to  imply  nothin,i>:  mor(! 
than  an  aureement  on  tin;  part  of  the  carrier  to  trans[)ort 
it   to   the  end   of  liis   I'oute  and    there  deliver  it  to  a  con- 


Foisylli.  (Jl  I'a.  St.  Nl  (Isc.'.t):  I'cun^ylvaiiia  |{.  Co.  v.  S(liwai/.('iil)('r;jcr, 
•t.')  I'a.  SI.  I'OS  (lS(i:{);  FarmtTs  »V:('.  Hank  v.  ('haniplaiii  Trans.  Co..  .'llVt. 
ISi;  (1S.->1):  Taylorv.  I.iltlc  JJockt<:('.  K.  Co..  li'J  Ark.  :!!>:?  (1S77):  United 
Sialcs  Ka.Co.v.  llaiiii's.  c:  Ill.l;i7  (lS7;i);  lOric  U.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  s-l  111. 
•J:i!)  (187(1):  (iihsoii  V.  AMiciican  Hy.  Co..  1  llmi.;{87  (1S71). 

■Fowli's  V.  (ircat  \Vc>;tcrii  U.  <o.,  7  lOxdi.  (l!)!l  (1n:>-_>)  ;  (/ollia-  v.  Wry- 
toj  iS:c.  |{.  Co.,  1  II.  it  \.  .")17  (IsriO).  and  case-t  ciKid  loitc,  s  -•>''• 

"Kent  v.  Midlarnl  U.  Co..  L.  IJ.   1(»  Q.  1$.  1  (1S7!). 

'  LoaisvilUf  ^-c.  ]{.  Co.  v.  Caiiiphell,  7  ll«'i<k.  '2't.i  (ls7:'):  Kawsoii  v. 
lloiliiiid.  .-)'.!  N.  y.  (ill  (KS7">). 

■^  Indianapolis  ^:l'.  U.  «  o.  v.  Strain.  SI  111.  .'01  (.l.S7('>}. 


;{<() 


TIIK  CONTItAf  TS  or  CAKIMK.KS. 


[cil.   XI. 


iH>ctii)<;  line  to  <-()iii|i|(<|i>  tlii>  (■iirri.'i;it>.  In  support  of  lln- 
tivHt  (lortrinc  it  is  !ir;;iic(l  tli:it  a  ditTcrcul  rule  would  work 
<;iTiit  iiicoiivniiciH't'.  A  pcisou  (Iclivcriiiji;  iiis  jioods  to  w 
ciirricr  lo  he  st-iil  lo  a  tcriaiii  placr  will  «:('ih'imIIv  rely  on 
liini  alone  to  prrt'orni  the  scrvici*.  II*>  can  not  Ix-  snpposiMl 
to  know  tli(>  particulai'  portion  of  liic  transit  wliirli  the  liist 
carrier  controls,  inucli  less  the  other  owners  or  pro|)i'i(>tors 
of  the  continnons  line,  lie  intends  to  niak(>  one  contract , 
l>ut  not  two  or  thn'c  or  half  a  do/en.  When  he  places  his 
property  in  the  hands  of  the  cai'riei',  he  at  once  loses  all 
control  over  it.  If  it  is  not  delivered,  how  is  he  to  dis«'ovei' 
al  what  particular  portion  of  the  i-oiite  it  was  lost?  He 
would  Ix^  fon-ed  lo  j-ely  on  the  sliitenients  of  the  carriers 
themselves,  who  would  lie  little  likely  to  aid  him  in  Ifis 
search.  If  he  did  succeed  in  lixin;n'  the  responsihilily,  he 
mi<.;ht  tind  himself  ohlii^cd  to  assert  his  claim  against  a  par- 
ty hundreds  of  miles  away,  and  undci-  circumstances  which 
mi<(ht  well  discourait'e  a  prudent  man  and  induce  him  to 
hear  his  loss  i-atherthan  incui' the  expense  and  li'(»u!»le  of 
pursuing' ills  remedy  aijainsl   so  il'stant   a  defendant.'     The 

''  ••  If  llic  ;^(M)ils  well'  III  111-  riM'i'ii'il  uiily  in  ilir  n.irniw  --riisi'  ciiiili'iiilt'il 
fill'  ItV  tlli^  ili*r(MI(lMlll>  llirll  if  tlir  |i|:iri-  of  ilji-ir  i|i'-l  ili.iliiill  weir  lillt 
lliri'f  Miiltv-'  lii'vtiiiil  I'nv'loM  ami  llii-y  wi'ir  ju^i  <iii  liu'  iilinT  >iilf  of  tin- 
ruliwiiy  tt'rmiims.  llic  ilrfcmlniii''  iiif  iml  in  lif  liiil>li'.  Iml  tin'  plaiiiliff  !> 
to  lind  iiiit  sumclMuly  III' iillii'r  w  liii  i-  in  lie  iiiilili'  in  I't'spccl  of  tlii' r;ii'- 
ii;i,Hi'(if  tiidsc  lliicc  mill"!."  (Jiiiiii'v.  II..  in  Mn-i'lianiji  v.  I, ancii«li'i' <<:(•.  H. 
('<>..^M.A  W.  I-Jl  (Isil).  ••As  to  till-  ca-c  wliicli  h:\<  lircii  jiiit  <if  a 
imsscii^rcr  Iiijiii'imI  iiii  a  iiiii'  <if  railway  licynml  tlial  wIhtc  Ih'  was  (irljfi- 
Inally  Ixniki-d.  I  siipimsi'  thai  it  is  put  a>  a  i-nliiciin  ml  iihxunldiii.  Init  I  ilu 
mil  sec  the  alisiii'dity.  If  I  \>nnk  my  placr  al  lOnsion  S(|naii'  ami  pay  In 
be  carrii'd  tu  Y(irk  and  am  injured  by  tin'  iii';>li;r"'m'i'  <if  sdiin'lindy  ln'- 
twi'cn  Knsioii  Si|iiari'  and  Yorl;.  I  dn  nut  know  why  I  am  mil  lo  have  my 
rrincdy  aifainsi  ihc  parly  who  so  coiilrai'ii'd  to  r-Avyy  im-  lo  York.  Hnl 
at  all  cv;Mits  in  the  case  of  :i  parcrl  any  oIIht  constincllon  would  opni 
the  door  (->  iiii'alcnlalili-  iiii'onvt'nii'm'cs.  Ymi  hook  a  iiarccl.  and  on  its 
hcinj;  lost  \,-  arc  told  Ihal  Ihc  ciirricr  is  i'cspon>il)lc  only  for  one  por- 
tion of  the  line  of  ida<l.  What  wmild  he  the  answer  of  tin-  owner  of  ihc 
jfdodsV  I  know  that  I  hooked  iIk^  parcel  at  the  (Joldcn  < 'ross  for  l.ivcr- 
(tool  and  my  eontracl  with  the  carrier  was  to  take  it  lo  F,ivci'|iool.  All 
coi!vcnicn('c  isone  Wiiy  and  there  is  no  aiiihority  the  other  way.''  Ifolfc. 
15..  in  Miischamii  v.  jjaneaster  Xc    ]{.  {'<<..  fiifm.     "  \  iicrson   sending 


<  M.    XI. 


(I    Wdlls 

'  to  :i 
it'lv  on 
ippost'd 
'  first 
•I'ictors 
•iitract, 

KM'S    his 
>S('S    ill  I 

li.srovcr 


II. 


'.•irnci's 


l.s 


ill  If 
ilv 


ji  p.-ir- 
'  wliicli 
him  to 


llhic  o 


Tl 


10 


ir  car- 


illll'llllcii 
il'H'     llllt 

••  of  the 
lint  iff  i> 
tl 

lilt  of  :i 
s  uiijj;i- 
itit  I  ill) 
I  )iiiy  to 
oily  Iic- 
iJivc  my 
k.     Hill 

III   Ojlfll 

I  on  lis 
ic  pcr- 
r  of  the 

|JV<T- 

il.     All 


IfoltV. 

••iiiliiii:' 


•II.   XI.] 


COWKCTINd  rAltlMKltN. 


:it7 


first  ciirricr,  on  the  coiitnnv.  hiis  fncilitics  for  tniciiio;  the 
loss  not  i)o.tst'.sM('(l  l>y  th<'  piihlic.  lie  is  ill  coiistunf  com- 
iiiiiirK'iilioii  will)  his  tissocialcs  in  tiic  liiisincss  ;  ju'  iiiis  tlicir 

goixN  l>y  II  ruilNvay  ran  not  l)c  >ii|i|io-i>i|  in  know  in  llii'  caxf  of  unnillii- 
iioii-' lini' who  iiri' tin- owners  of  it-'  diffcicni  itnitioiii.  ||i>  hai  a  ri^tlit 
1(1  sii|i|ii)si' wlii'ii  tin-  olllri'i-;  (if  the  coniiiaiiy  at  one  cxtri'iiiity  rccdvo 
)((i(i(|s  to  he  (l»'l\vi'r«>i!  at  the  other  extienilty  either  tliaf  llic  wlmle  line 
tielcn;,'^  1(1  them  or  at  all  event-^  they  sn  repre.-ient  It  and  that  tliey  coii- 
Iraet   on  that    foolln)f."     I.oni  Craiiworth.    in   Direcidr-'   of  Hrlstol    U. 


V.  Collins,  7   II.   I.,  ras.   IDI   {\s:,H). 


'That   I  lie  (lefeiKlaiitM  were 


fdinmoii  earrii'i'^'  on  their  own  line  of  railway  U  not  ilis|iiileil  nor  eoiihl 
It  he:  hut  It  is  s:iiil  that  lieynml  the  extent  of  their  own  line  lliey  are  not 
xiilijeel  to  ihe  llahiiities  of  cominoii  carrh'iH  lieeaiisc  they  onlyjmdertake 
to  forwanl,  not  lo  carry  the  •jfooiU,  |  am  of  opinion  tliat  the  ;;oo(Im 
were  recciveil  hy  (ieri'inlaiils  to  he  carried  hy  tlieni  a^  coinnion  carriers 
from  I'eiizaiice  to  Wolvcilianiploii.  It  witiildhe  Inconvenient  if  we  were 
Id  hold  that  n|ion  the  con^triictioii  of  these  facts,  the  plaintiff  was  in  the 
h'itiiation  of  a  per^dii  who  did  not  contract  with  the  defendants  heyond 
tilt'  extent  of  their  own  line,  or  who  inaile  sepanit(>  contracts  with  ii 
nnmlier  of  different  canieis  liciwceii  j'en/iiiiee  and  ^Volvcl•halnl)ton." 
('hanneli.  it.,  in  Will.y  v.  West  <'onnvall  K.  Co., -J  11.  A  \.  707  (IH.VS). 
••'I'hense  of  steam  in  carryiiiLC  ;;o(ids  and  |iasseni;ei's  has  produced  a 
^reat  n>volntioii  in  the  whole  Inisinees.  'I'he  Minoiinl  and  importance  of 
it  liavc  of  late  vastly  Increased  and  are  everyday  incrcaslnjif.  Tlie  lar;^(' 
hnsiiiess  between  different  parls  of  tlie  eoMiitry  is  ddiie.  as  in  tliis  case. 
Iiy  patties  who  are  ass((ii;iicd  in  hm;;  conlimioiis  lines  receiving;'  one  fare 
tlir(iii;:h  and  dividiii;;  it  ainon^  themselves  hy  mutual  agreement.  They 
act  top'ther  for  all  practical  piirp<i>es  so  fjir  as  tlieir  own  interests  are 
concerned  as  one  united  and  joint  association.  In  niana;;'in;;  and  controlN 
in;i,'  the  business  on  tlieir  line-  liny  have  all  the  advanl.a^t's  that  could  be 
<lerived    from    a    lejjal    parliicrship.     'i'hey   make  such  an  arranu'emenl 


anion"'  ilieiiiselve 


!hev  see  tit   for  shariii";  tln^  losses,  as  thcv  do  tl 


prolits,  that  hap|ien  on  any  |iarl   of  ihcii 


Hitc.     If  bv  tlieir 


le 

jrccmeiil 
iliat  happen 


each  party  to  tin nnccied  line  is  lo  make  j;;(io(l  the  lo 

on  his  |<art  of  the  route  the  a-socialcd  carriers  and  not  the  owners  of  the 


poods  have  the  m 


ea'is 


if  a-ceitaininf::  where  the  losses  have  happened. 


i\nd  if  tills  can  not  be  Known  llicre  is  notliinu'  mii-easdnabie  or  nicomc- 


nlcnt  in  their  'hariii! 


tl 


le    loss.    ;|- 


if  a   leual  jiai  liieishii),  in  pro- 


portion to  tlieir  rc-pcclivc  inlei-csl>  in  tlie  whole  roiiie.  They  nnderlake 
the  business  of  comiiidn  carilc!s  and  must  be  nndcrstodd  to  assume  the 
|e,v;al  11; 
<-hai 


'III 


ies  df  that   biisiucss.     They   transact  the  bnsliie-s  itnder  a 

le-e  of  ciic'imsiaiices;  hill   the  principles  ami  the  , genera  I  (lolicy  of 

law  w  idi  h  as  an  elementary  iiiaNim  holds  the  conimoii  carrier 

II  accMeiilai  losses  musi  lie  apiilied  Id  these  nielhods  of  tiaiis- 

aiiic  biisiiies.;;  and  ihere   is  c.'riaiiiiy  iiolhin^;  in  the  present 


le  commiin 


tl 

liable  f( 

actiii;''  ■ 

Odn'.rnidii  of  Ihe  bi!siii.'>s  which  calls  I'or  anv  rcla\atioM  of  the  old  rule 


1/ 


'MH 


rilK  CONTKACTS  Ol'  (AltKI  KKS.  [cil.   Xl, 


receipts  for  the  pn»i)erly  dcliveii'd  to  llu'iii,  iind  willi  no  iii- 
eouvenieiK'e  at   all    could    cliarjic  tin;  loss  to  his   iieylitfciit 


M  n 


^1 


'riu' grcal  value  of  llic  (•oiniinnlilii'-i  traiisimrlcd  over  llii'si'  ('oiiiici';i'i| 
linos;  llie  iiicicascd  risk  of  loss  and  daiiiaj;!'  from  tlie  iiniiiciisc  disiaiii-cs 
(i\(T  wliit'li  tlicy  cai'ry  i;'0(i(U;  llic  fact  thai  where  ^ood^  are  unec!  in- 
tnisted  to  I'arrieis  (111  Ilie.-e  liiMn' I'oiiles  ilii'V  are  placed  lievoiid  all  con- 
trol and  sii|)ei'visi(iii  of  ilie  owner,  are  cu;;-eii{  reasons  lor  lioldlnji'  lliosc 
who  associate  in  these  eoniieeled  lines  to  a  nili'  wiii"h  shall  ,;;i\('  eJleetual 
and  convenieiil  remedy  to  the  owiicr  wlio>e  ;i;(H.ds  lia.xc  oeen  lost  or 
damaged  on  any  pari  of  the  line.  .\u\  nile  wiiieli  ^hotdd  have  tlir  I'lYcei 
lo  defe.it  or  einliarrass  the  owner".-  remedy  would  lie  iu  dlreci  couiliel 
with  111"  |iriiieiplc.-  ami  whole  poliey  of  the  eumuioii  l,i\', .  What  liien  is 
the  situation  of  die  owner  \\ho-.c  i;oo(!>  lia\e  hn  n  dain;u.ved  or  losi  on  a. 
conliimons  line  of  three  or  an\  larpi'  nmnlier  of  a-soii;Hi'd  eai-riers.  if 
he  can  look  onl  to  tliv  carrier  onwlio>c  jiari  of  'lir  ronie  the  daina^i" 
may  have  h.ippenecr.'  In  the  lirsl  ]i|;iee  he  mu.-l  se!  al'oui  lea;niii';' 
where  his  lo-s  happened.  'I'liis  wduld  ofii'ii  tie  dillicadi  and  ^omelilne1 
iiiipossilile.  .'Uippo.-e  all  in\oiee  of  llour  -hipped  in  i;'ood  order  at 
OU'denslmri!;  were  found  on  arrixal  ai  i'>o>;o'i  to  li;i\elieeii  (i;iiiiai;'ed 
somew  here  mi  tin-  route,  or  -nppose  ;p  trunk  elieel.ed  at  Hm.-Iou  foi'  ( 'hi- 
cajijo  was  broken  ojien  and  plundeied  hei'<ire  it  r>'aclied  ( 'liiea,i;-.i.  w  hat 
would  the  owner's  chance  he  woniiof  rmdii;;n'  (Ui:  inwliai  paiiienlai 
part  of  the  roine  the  dannijic  hap]Hned'r  lie  would  h;'\e  no  means  (U 
leaniiiii'' himself,  and  hewdiild  not.  niile-s  of  a  ver\- eoniidinu' deiiosi- 
tion.  r(dy  on  .I'ly  very  zealous  aid  in  his  .imicIi  from  tin'  ilifiiu-ent  ( .ir- 
rters  assoeialc(l  in  the  connected  line.  And  if  he -hoiuii  have  ihr  link 
to  make  the  diseov(M'y  he  mij;'ht  lie  (ilili).!;ed  to  :i~-e;'i  hi- claim  foi  ,  om- 
pcnsation  a;r;nnst  a  distant  jiarly.  anion^'  >i!'an  iei-.  in  <|,-.iiin-taiices 
such  as  would  disconra/^e  a  prudent  man  and  induce  him  to  -i;  down  pa- 
tiently nnder  his  loss  ratliei'  than  incur  the  e;;pen<e  and  ri-k  of  putvuiii'i' 
his  h'naj  remedy  under  the  rule  sei  lip  !iy  tliesi' defeuda!'!^.     *     *  A 

rule  which  throws  siii'li  dilliciilties  io  ;iie  wiiy  of  the  owner  who  -eeks  lo 
recover  of  common  carriers  fiU' the  lo.- of  hi-  i;(ie.iU  I  can  iioi  liiii  ri'- 
jj;ar(l  as  a  wide  depariure  from  ihe  general  doeiriue  of  ihe  eomnioii  law 
on  this  siihiec!."'  I'erlcN .  ( '.  .1 ..  in  l.oi'k  (  d.  \ .  li'ailn.a  I.  i'<  \.  II.  IIIIS 
(ISd!)).  "Uy  the  law  of  eomiium  eaiiier^  TLeir  ila!iili:\  wa-  ll\e(!  oii 
tlu'  reicipl  of  the  Hoods  lo   he    eir;ied.      *  The    ree   ipl    of    ;^oods  |r. 

them  is  all  that  is  neee-siiry  to  li\  thi-  lialilli:  \ .  -o  iha;  if  a  paieej  oi- 
pai'kaii'e  lie  deliicrcd  loa  railroad  at  f'hieauo  maiked  fi|-  I.oiii-\i||e,  Ky.. 
or  any  other  place  off  their  route  and  ilii  ;,  ie,el\e  ii  n  earry.  they  ;ire 
hound  liy  ihi>  rule  of  the  common  la'\.  if  liie  |;acka!re  oi-  parcel  lie  lost, 
lo  accoiiu!  ioilie  owner  foi-  ii-  \aiue.  'I'lie  e.iii.raci  oi  liie  >hiiiiii  r  ;.. 
with  the  carrier  in  wlio<e  eii.-tody  he  place-    tin   iiooij-.  N. ■■.•,.  oo 

llie  point  of  ]iu'ilic  eom  eiiieiiee.  wliieh  eoii-idiration  had  ;:'rea!  i  i'i:;li! 
w  itli  lis  ill  deiei'iiiiniiiLC  w  hieli  rule  -hoiild  lie  ailop  e.l.  it  ■(  em-  lo  i,-  I  ha; 
the  consi^'iioi  -  of  the  produ."ioii-.   of  owr   eomiti-y  or  oljn  !■    p;..;rert',    hy 


[cii.  XI. 

itii  no  in- 
iicnliociil 

t'ornifi-icil 

•  tlislMllrcs 

mice    jii- 
il  all  cca- 

liilli;    ll|(;>,- 

<■  vJiVc|!ial 
t'li   In-!    ur 

illr  ('lYc<-l 

•i  I'ciiiliii 
lal  ihi'ii  is 
li'sl  (III  :i 
(■.•irricrs,  if 
I''  ihiiii.-i^" 
i  ii';i;-|iiii';- 
■"IllrliDic 
1  iikIci-  III 
'    <i'Uil;lL;'C(i 

>ii  liii'  ( 'lii- 

i'il;i".  \vii;U 

pellicula] 

'    lll>'.-|IIS    (.) 

ii;;'  (j.'posi- 
H'rciil  lar- 
•'  111!'  luck 
I  I'm  ,  iiiii- 
iiiiHiaiicc-. 
iliiwn  |>;i- 

r  I'lii-iiii!- 

■  *  ■''  A 
!•  -ri'l^s  lij 
"I  Inn  !•<■- 
Iilii|ii;i  lav. 

.\.  II.  :i;;-; 

■  lixi'l!     <i!| 

;.'.<><  11 N  |r, 

!':irr|.|    ,11' 

villi'.  Ky.. 
•  IIu'V  ar<' 

■I    1m'    lusl, 

>lu|ijii  I-  ;. 

.\">',  ,    I  HI 

■A'-    \    ri:;|i; 

I"  •'•'  ilia; 
'.■H-rty   liy 


I'll.   \l.] 


<'<)\m:(ii\(;  caimmki.-s. 


;54() 


iiii'cnl.       In  sni)i)()ft  of  liic  second  do-'trir.c  it  is  simiilv  sni- 
swcrcd  tliMt  tlic  cxtrMordiiiary  linliiliVics  of  coninion  carriors 

lailrnad  >li(>iili|  uni  lir  iciniin  d  in  ca^c  of  ji,-;  or  ilmiiauc  In  Icicik  for  rc- 
iiiiiiici'alioii  Id  any  olli<  r  j)!iKiy  lliaii  ilu'  on  •  \,<  w  iiii  !i  Hn'v  ddh  ■rcu  tlic 
■fodtls.  It  would  \)v  a  .^'I't-al  liardslii])  iiidcrd  to  coiiiiicl  tlic  consiiiiior  of 
!i  fcwliiincN  of  lliuir  tltdivcrcd  to  a  railroad  in  tliis  State,  miukcd  lo  N'cw 
York  city  and  whidi  arc  lost  in  tlic  tniiisit.  to  {i'o  to  New  York  or  io  the 
intcriiicdiaic  lines  of  road  and  s|icriil  days  and  weeks  ji'Mliaps.  in  endeav- 
ors to  lind  out  on  wlnit  i)articiilar  road  the  loss  liapiicncd.  and  liavini;- 
a.scci'tained  ii.  on  the  event  of  a  refusal  to  adjust  the  loss,  to  lirinji'  a  snit 
in  the  oom'ts  of  New  York  for  liis  tlania^-e^.  Far  more  jnst  would  it  lie 
to  liold  the  einnpany  wlio  received  the  jjoods  in  the  lirst  instance  as  the 
rcsponsilile  iiarty.  and  the  inleniicdiate  roads  its  aj^ents  to  carry  and  de- 
liver, and  it  is  tlic  most  rcasonahle  and  jnst.  for  all  lailroads  have  facili- 
ties not  i)o-scssed  liy  a  consi^j'iior  of  tracing  loss(>s  of  property  convey(nl 
by  tlK'iii  and  all  have  or  can  have  rnnninj;'  connections  with  each  other. 
Aliove  all  when  it  is  considered  that  the  rccv'iviiij;  comiiany  can  at  llie 
oulset  relieve  iiself  from  its  common  law  liahilily  liy  a  special  anil 
deliiiite  ajrreenuMit  such  a  rule  can  not  prejudice  tli(>m."'  Brcese  J.,  in 
in  Illinois  <'cnt.  H.  Co.  v.  Frankcntieij;-.  ."n  111.  SS  (1S70).  "We  feel  no 
di-|iosi!ion  to  relax  ilx'  ride  of  liahilify  on  the  jiarl  of  railroads  now 
having:  almost  a  monojioiy  of  tlie  traii-portaiiun  of  all  the  i)i(iduct.s  of 
the  industry  as  well  as  arli'dcs  of  merchandise,  of  this  ijieal  and  rai'Mlly 
dc\clopin<j  country.  It  would  seriously  incommoile  the  business  of  the 
country  if  when  properly  is  shipped  by  one  road  and  must  jtass  over 
more  than  Iliis  road  in  order  to  reach  its  destination,  the  -hipper  in  case 
of  injury  to  his  noods  is  (o  iiii|uiri'  how  many  routes  anii  how  many  dif- 
ferent comiianies  maki-  u]!  the  line  between  the  j/lace  oi  sliipment  and 
delivery  or  to  dt'lcrmim'  at  his  j.i'ril  which  company  is  liable  for  the 
injury.''  Freeman  .1..  in  East  'rennesscn^  i'<:c'.  H.  Co.  v.  Koj^^crs.  (!  Ileisk. 
M;i  (1X71).  "It  would  lie  exceedingly  hard  if  tJie  shipper  of  a  small  but 
valualile  package  at  Hoston  should  lie  compelled  to  trace  the  jia'ckage 
from  tiiat  iioint  along  all  the  intervening  line.;  over  which  ii  might  jxis- 
sibly  pass  in  order  lo  reach  'rennessee  in  onh'r  to  lind  who  v.as  responsi- 
ble to  him  for  its  lo-s.  It  is  said  in  argnnuMit.  liowcver.  that  llie  liooks 
of  each  comiiany  would  show  the  I'l-ceipt  of  the  package.  'I'liat  inay  be 
ami  is  true  no  doubt :  but  then  the  books  are  their  own  and  may  or  may 
no'  be  CAhibited  to  a  single  shiiiiicr  or  may  not  piissibly  show  the  truth 
of  the  case.  At  any  rate  it  would  not  b-  jiropcr  that  the  shijiiicr  should 
be  compelled  to  rciy  on  the  evidence  to  be  furnished  by  the  comiiany 
sought  to  be  held  liable  to  sustain  his  right.  On  tlieolherliand.il  im- 
|)oscs  no  hard-hip  upon  the  other  roads. liecanse  they  are  in  constant 
(Minmnnica'.ion.  interchange  business,  and  the  l)o(>ks  of  the  company 
originally  shipping  would  sbow  it  was  rec(>ived  by  the  oilier  and  would 
he  always  in  tii''ir  posses-iou  and  of  ready  access,  'i'hus  the  inconvcni- 
eiic"  to  the  road  would  be  much  less  than  to  the  single  •hipiier  of  a  par- 


=t¥T»'W'vw?wr»?«!»w 


850 


TlIK  CONTHACTIS  OF  CAKKIKHS. 


[on.  XI 


Ml  J 


ciin  not  in  justice  ho  extended  beyond  their  own  routes, 
where  alone  they  hrae  an  ()])i)ortuiiity  of  ehoosinj;  fen- them- 
selves their  servants,  and  of  i>uardin<ji;  the  property  enlrusled 
to  their  eare.'" 

I'll  wlio  inij;lii  never  Itave  iiiiother  tiMiisaelidii  with  :my  of  tlie  eoinininie-; 
(iiirinij^  liis  life."  Fi'ceiii-.iii.  .J.,  in  We-leni  i*^c.  IJ.  Co.  v.  Mel'^lut'c,  (I 
Siieeil.2()S  (1S71).  A  sttitiitedf  Missouri  passeil  last  year  providiisas  fol- 
lows: ••  Wlieiiever  any  properly  ;  rc"eive<l  l)y  a  eoniinoii  earrior  to  lie 
triuisferreil  from  oiii'  i)lace  to  another  within  or  without  this  State  or 
when  a  railroad  or  other  triiiisjiortation  company  issues  reeeiitts  or  hills 
of  ladlnji'  in  this  State,  the  eonnnon,  carrier,  railroad  or  tran>p<n'tation 
company  issiiin.u'  sncli  hill  of  ladinj;  shall  be  litilile  fov  any  loss,  dama.i^e 
or  injnry  to  snch  property  caused  l>y  Its  ne^iliijenee  or  the  neijliii-ence  of 
any  oilier  eonnnon  I'arrier.  railroad  oi'  iran-porlation  compjiny  to  which 
snch  projicrty  may  he  delivered  or  over  whose  line  snc]i  i)roperty 
may  pass,  and  the  eonnnon  carrii'r.  railr(^ad  or  transportation  conipaiiv 
i-siiin.if  snch  rci-eipt  or  hill  of  ladiii;;  shall  he  eiititlrul  to  recover  in  a 
|)r(>per  ai'tion  the  amount  of  any  loss,  damaji;*'  <>r  injnry  it  may  he  rc- 
(inired  to  pay  to  the  owner  of  snch  property  from  the  comin(m  carrier, 
railroad  or  tran.-p(irtation  company  thron<;li  whose  ne;nii^ence  the  loss, 
daniiij^e  or  injnry  may  i»e  sustained."  ]{ev.  Slat,  of  .Missonri.  (1870) 
cap.  14.  !?  TitlS.  p.  '.).").  'I'liis  provisi(m  is  eminently  just,  fi'ivin^  as  it  does 
to  the  shii)per  a  certain  remedy  for  ihe  recovery  of  his  ujoods  and  entail- 
in<^  npon  the  carrier  to  whom  tlie  ;;ootls  were  lirst  delivered  no  hartlsliii) 
at  all. 

Ill  ••The  receipt  shows  noihinji'  more  than  the  nal<ed  fact  that  a  box  of 
merchandise  marked  •,].  I'etric.t.iule  falls.  Herkimer  Co.."  was  received 
on  hoard  the  tow-lioal  Oiilai'io.  from  Si.  .John  i<;'roiisey.  The  low-hoat. 
Ontario  carried  n'oods  hi'iwccn  New  York  and  Alliany.  ami  ii  is  noi  pre- 
tended that  Ihe  owners  were  coimeclcd  wiih  any  line  of  lrans]ioriaii(in 
heyond  either  of  tho>e  places.  The  cnsiom  of  trade  and  ihe  nalure  of 
the  hnsiness  carric<|  on  liy  ihe  plaintifi's  in  error  tended  lo  explain  she 
ptirpftse  of  the  liailineiii.  and  accordini;'  lo  ,h"  i'\ideiicc  c\hiliiied  in  Miis 
lansewcnld.  1  iliiril;.  inalvc  lliem  liable  as  ctimnion  canicrs  from  New 
York  to  Alb, my.  ami  as  forwarders  beyond  that  place,  'i'he  (k'fendants 
ilk  error  can  n'<l  !ie  prisumi  d  to  have  been  i.i;"noranl  of  Ihe  nature  of  the 
plaintiff>"  lui-ini -.-.  and  ijial  the  Ontario  carrieil  frei;j;lit  oidy  between 
N'ew  York  jiid  Aiiiaii* .  li  is  not  necessary,  as  sn^ijested  by  the  Sn- 
preine  Conn,  that  ilie  i-cceipt  sho\d<I  have  limited  th(U'arria,U'' lo  Alliany, 
lu^-anse  the  receipi  in  It -el!'  creates  no  liabilily  exee)it  sncli  as  arises  from 
(he  men'  delivci-y  <;f  the  liox  on  board  of  thi'  vessel.  The  implied  con- 
tract which  the  law  makes  for  Ihe  pariii's  must  be  reasonable,  and  snch 
as  is  I'onsi.-ient  with  tin?  plaintiffs'  occnpation  ami  the  nsaj^c^  of  trade.  If 
the  receipt  had  bet'ii  !j;ivi'n  by  a  person  whose  business  was  to  rectdvo 
jftiods  for  storajre,ihe  implied  contract  would  he  to  keeji  them  with  ordi- 
nary diligence;  and  the  name  of  a  place  marked  on  a  box  could  not 


i^T 


m 

V 

1 

t 

f 

[on.  XI. 


<\l.  XI 


■] 


CONNKCTINC  CAI.'HIKKS, 


351 


1  n)ut(;s, 
Foriliciu- 
'iilrus|(«(| 


<'IChvo('.  (I 
<'sas  ful- 
■i'i<'r  to  i)(' 
State  (Il- 
ls (ir  l)ills 
>|><>rlatioii 
-.  tlaina;,'f 
i.iiciicc  ,){ 
y  to  wliicii 
l>r<)|H'riy 
I  '•"iiipaiiv 
'<iv('i-  ill  a 
lay  lie  w- 
I'll  carrier, 

0  tiie  loss, 
n-i.    (187!)) 

iis  it  does 
ml  eiilail- 

>  li:irclslii|) 

1  a  Iiox  of 
IS  received 

lou  -lu,at 
s  not  piC- 

•poriaiioii 

lialllle    dl" 

cpiaiii  the 
ed  in  Miis 
roiii  Xcu 
efi'iidaiiis 
ire  of  ilic 
lietweeil 
r  the  Sii- 

>  Alliany. 
ises  from 
lied  cdii- 
:iiid  such 
trade.    If 

>  rceeivo 
Itli  ordi- 
oukl  uot 


§  23!).  77k^  L',i;//!s/,  lJo<h-ii,r.—T\w  lifst  of  tlic  two 
views  just  nu'iitioiK'd  is  the  Kiijilish  (loctriiic,  tii-st  iiit- 
iKtiiiu'cd  ill  llic  li'iidiuu"  cusc  of  MhscIkiii)}!  r.  LancasU'r  o,i(l 
I'lr.sfon  JiukHoii  'Ralhrfii/  i'dnijxui;/.  Then;  a  piiix-ol  Wiis 
(Iclivcivd  to  tlu'  clcfoiidimt  at  Ltinciistcr  directed  to  ii  person 

siiiiject  liiiii  to  the  lial»illties  of  a  coniiiioii  carrier.     In  the  ease  before 
us  the  receipt  raises  no  siiecla!  coiuraet.     It  neitlier  spcciiles  nor  iini)oses 
any  ohlijjation  on  liie   ]iarty  juiviu;;-  it  other  or  different   from  that  whicii 
he  is  under  liy  reason  of  the  nature  and  ordinary  .'ourse  of  his  luisiness. 
N'oitretense  is  made  here  that  any  special  contract  was  entered  into,  and 
the  only  reasonable  coiilraet  wliich  the  law  can  imply  under  the  cireiini- 
stiinees  of  tliis  case  is  tiiat  the  plaintiff-  in  error  should  carry  the  box  to 
Albany  and  foi-ward  it  th(>nce  to  the  place  of  dcMinalion.     The  rule  es- 
tablished liy  the  Supreme  t'ourt  that  the  name  of  a  place  marked  on  a 
i)ox  of  nierchandi>e  im|)lies  a  efuilract  to  deliver  at  such  place  withoni 
any  reference  to  the  nature  and  exlcni  of  th(>  business  and  employment 
of  the  carrier  is  frauicht  with  i'onse(|uenee.s  most  alarndnjjf  to  all  who  ni'i' 
en;ja!ie<l  in   freijihtin^i;  and  lrans]ioriation.     Snp)iose  the   box  had  been 
marked   •  Brown's  Hole.  Ifocky  .Mountains."     The  Sujn-enie  Court  say 
there  is  an  implied  contract  to  deliver  the  i^oods  at  that  place.    And  as 
it  is  the  duly  of  every  man  faithfully  to  fultil  his  conlracts,  the  plaintiff 
in  error  must   abandon  his  ordinary  a\dcation  and  business,  leave  the 
delij^hts  of  domestic  association,  embark  with  his  dearly  bonji;lit  freight 
and  follow  the  lonj::  lines  of  internal  navij;aiion  till  he  reaches  the  head 
waters  of  the  Yellow  stone.     Then  he  must   traverse  avast  desert  with 
Indian  horses  and  pack  saddl(>s.  exposed  to  famine,  to  the  wintry  storms, 
to    wild    beasts   and    savages:    and   if    I'rovidence  should    protect  him 
through  every  d.Migei-  he  return^  after  years  of  suffering  a  worn  out  beg- 
gar to  a  ruined  iiome.     Tills  maybe  considered  an  extreme  easct:  yet   I 
conceive   it  is  no  more  than  carrying  out   the  principle  to  its  legitimate 
and  cerlain  results.     At  tlie  same  lime  this  receipt  was  given  another  re- 
ceipt was  given  for  a  box  of  mci-chaiidise  marked  •(;,  S.  JIubbartl.  Chi- 
cago. Illinois."     '!'he  same  principle  wiiicli  makes  tlie  defendants  below 
lialile  as  common  carriers  to  l.ilile  I'alis  would  extend  tin  ir  liability  lo 
Chicago  and  even  to  Oregon  and  China.     If  they  receive  a  chest  of  tea 
marke<l  •  IIou(iua.  Canion,"  they  must  carry  il  there.    The  doctrine  is  lot,* 
ruinous  and  monstrous  in  its  consetiucnces  to  remain  for  one  hour  the 
law  of  the  land.     A  pi-rson  engaged  in  the  l)iisiness  of  freighling  from 
N'ew  York  to  Albany  is  aceiistomeil  to  carry  goods  foreverydeah-rand  re- 
tailer and  many  of  the  eonsuniers  throughout  the  wide  extent  of  the  coun- 
try, and  he  ])rol)ably  receives  at  each  tri])  more  tliaii  one  hundred  diffen'iit 
parcels  of  merchandise,  with  as  many  different  iianies  of  jilaees  marked 
tliere'iu.    To  hold  him  responsible  for  the  acts  of  olhors  with  whom  he. 
has  no  connection  and  over  whom  he  has  no  control,  and  make  him  liable 
as  a  eoninion  etirrier  for  the  safely  of  each  of  these  parcels  till  it  reaches 


■ij;,fgn,^»a'<jy»>iyy- 


>\r)2 


TlIK  CONTRACTS  OK  CAIMMKltS. 


[ciI.   XI. 


ill  DcM-hvsliirc,  u  place  hcvoiul  its  route,  wliirh  ended  at 
I'rcston.  The  earrier  was  to  i)e  paid  at  tlie  end  of  the 
journey.  The  pared  liavinir  l)een  h)sl  after  it  was  foi- 
warded  from    Treston.    Koi.ri:,   15.,  (liani(Ml  the    jury  thai 


J».!!:.4 


5U;;l': 


»;. 


its  ultiiniUcdcstinalioii  would  hi-  llu'  .<li<»ri  wiiylo  riiiii  liiin.  Mi>  husincss 
coiild  not  !)('  carried  on  iiiidi-r  ilic  opcnUiini  of  such  a  nilo.    If  a  coiitraiM 
is  to  he  iiniilk'd  incrcly  from  a  iiiaik  upon  tin'  box  and  willioiit  icfcroiicc 
to  the  iiatinv  of  tlii'  ciniiloymi'nl   or  hiislncss  of  llic  parly,  then  every 
oannun  wlio  rooeivts  ii  marked  bale  of  nierehandlse  is  in  <j;reat  danj,fer. 
If  the  fatal  name  of  '  Peekap;:uua  '  or  '  Cliep;oinie,<;on  "  appear  niion  the 
hale  the  earman  in  the  eity  as  well  as  the   frei,<];hter  on   the   Hudson  will 
be  held  liable  as  a  eonnnon  carrier  till  the  };;oods  shall  reach  their  desti- 
nation. Such  cannot  be  the  law.  The  practical  inconvenience  and  injus- 
tice of  such  a  riih!  woidd  be  too  <;reat  to  b(\  endured."   lluckce.  Senator. 
in  Van  Santvoord  v.  St.  John,  (i  Mill.  l.")7  (iSi:{).     '•  (ioods  from  the  city 
of  Now  York  are  sent  to  every  part  of  the  rniled  States,  and  in  many 
oases  must  pass  thousands  of  miles  throiiuh  the  hands  of  a  j;-reat  num- 
ber of  common  carriers.  differin;f  in  lluir  modes  of  trainporlation  and 
throiifjh  a  variety  of  chaimels.  exposed  in  unecpial  decrees  to  risk  and 
hazard;  the  carriers  haviuij  no  other  coimeclion  than  such  as  consists  in 
formiiijj;  a  conlinuoiis  line  of  comnniuication  between  distant  iioints  anil 
havinji;  little  or  no  o|)|)or;unity  of  htH-omiM!;  acipiainled  with  the  charac- 
ter and  responsibility  of  each  other.     If.  thei-efore.  those  en;::a;j<'d  in  the 
business  at  the  t;Tcal  and  imporiant   jioints  of  shipment   arc  to  be  held 
accountable  for  the  safe  delivery  of  jiroperty  receised  by  them  until  it 
reaches  its  nmst  extreme  i)oint  of  destination  and  that  accounlability  is 
to  be  inf(M-red  from  the  nier<'  mark  on  tln'  jiiu'kaj^e  or  box  copied  into  a 
receipt.    'Ul  few  responsible  and  trustworthy  men  will  hereafter  consent 
to  in(Mir  such  indelinile  and  far-extended  liabilliics.  especially  at   the 
])resent  lu-icesof  fi-eijihl.     The  business  will  pass  into  the  hands  of  mere 
jidvenlurcrs — men  who  have  but  linle  to  hazard   in  property  or  reputa- 
tion— or  the  lu'iccs  of  freiohi  must  be  increased  in  a  liitio  corrcspendini:' 
with  the  risk.     lOvery  one  aeipiaintcd  wiih  the  mode  in  which  •:;oods  are 
sliii)ped  in  New  Y<M'k  for  the   country  and  especially  with   the  hurrii'il 
.•iiid   pressing  manner  in   which   the  bu-iness  of  the  spriuir  and    fall  is 
transacted  imisi.  Ill'  aware  of  th(>  dillicuhies  of  deliuinj;' by  spei'ial  con- 
tract the  precise  liability  which  the  carrier  is  to  incur  for  <'ach  box  or 
paeka<;e  of  merchandise  which  may   lind  ils  way  on  bo:',i(l  his  vessel. 
But  upon  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  <  'ouri  there  can  be  no 
necessity  of  i)ro(!ucin;^  a  recei})t  in  order  to  tix  ihi'  liability  of  the  com- 
mon carrier.    (Joods  may  lie  delivered  on  board  a  tow-boat  lyiiuj.'  at  .New- 
York,  directed  to  <uic  of  the  most   remote  sitllemeiits  in  the  far  west; 
and  if  the  t)ox  or  pacliaj^'c   be  received  wiiliout   any  (luaiilicalion  or  ex- 
planation between  tlie  i)arlies  the  mere  fact  of  ils  deliverv  to' 


V 


ler  w 


ith 
the  direction  marked  nuou  it  iiniilies  that    the  carrier  ha-  coniraelcd  to 


>f  ils  delivery  to;;;'! 


Ill 


M.   XI. 


CM.   XI 


■] 


CONXrt  riN(i  (AiMM.'OKS. 


.^T 


ittMt 


lied   ii 

)f  111 


s 


f 


or- 


V    tllilt 


IISlllCSS 

'oiilnici 
ff'icncc 
1  every 
liiiij^ei'. 
xin  the 
:oii  will 
rdesli- 


IllJIlS- 


einilor. 
lie  city 
1  iiiMiiy 
(  iiMin- 
iiii  aiiil 
-ik  and 
-i>ts  ill 
Its  iiiid 
liarae- 


le  lield 
iiiiiil  it 
lilily  is 

into  a 
■iiiiseiil 

at  tho 
if  mere 
epiita- 
I'lidiii^- 
(Is  are 
iiiri-ied 


IS 


fall 

1    Cdll- 

t(ix  or 
vessel. 


COIII- 
I  New 

west; 
ir  ex- 
I-  with 
led    to 


ulicrc  :i  coininoii  ciiri'icr  takes  into  his  (vnn  h  pan-el  directed 
to  a  |);iftieiii;!i'  place  and  doc^s  not  liy  positive  jiji-fecineiil 
limit  liis  resp()iisil)ilit\;t()  a  part  oiilv  of  the  distiuice.  it  is 
y>/'/;//'^y<^/c/VM',viilciice  ol'  an  underlakino' on  his  part  to  carry 
ihiit  p.'ircel  to  the  phiee  to  which  it  is  directed,  iind  thiit  the 
same  ride  iipplied  silthouuii  the  jjhice  was  hoyond  the  liinits 
within  which  he  in  u'cneriil  professed  to  perform  the  duties 
of  a  carri(;r.  The  jury  found  for  the  plaintiff  and  the  case 
was  taken  to  the  Court  of  lv\clie(|iier,  where  the  direction 
was  iipproved."  In  Cdl/iiis  r.  IJn'sfol  and  ExHi'v  Jtalhmii/ 
(Joiiijinin/,"  the  phiintiff  delivei-ed  at  the  station  of  the 
(Jreiit  Western  Railway  Com[)any  at  l>iitli  it  van  lotid  of  fur- 
niture to  be  conveyed  to  'ronpitiy.  The  line  of  the  hitter 
company  eiuleil  at  Bristol,  sit  which  place  that  of  the  de- 
fendant company  I)e_ifaii,  hut  the  goods  would  have  to  he 
delivered  to  a  third  company  before  rc!ichin<r  Toniutiv.  The 
rei'(M[)i  o-iven  bytlu'  (ireat  Western  Comp:iny  was  headed  as 

de- 
ceive the  underinentioiied  "oods  on  the  conditions  stilted  on 


follows:    "  To  the  (ireat    Western    IJailway  C'onipiiiiy 


traiis|)(irl  it  safely  to  i!s  ulliiiiate  jioiiit  of  destination.  And  thus  the 
ca;  TJei- on  liie  lliidsini  ri\'er\\lio  iiia.\  lioiiesily  siijipose  llial  he  has  dis- 
eh.ii-ncii  his  duty  and  ohli'^aiion  hy  liaii>|iortini;-  ihendoilsto  Alliany.  the 
exieni  of  his  idiite.  e.nd  there  de]i\-erinii:  them  to  a  safe  and  resi)oiisil)le 
line  of  boats  on  the  eauid,  linds  too  late  thai  his  resi)oii>ii)ility  extended 
thronjiii  a  dozen  re-sliijimenl-  and  eai'fiaii'es  l)y  land  and  water  for 
thousands  of  miles,  and  is  tinally  made  to  jiay  for  the  loss  of  the  floods 
oeeasioneil  hy  the  dishonesty  or  earelessne»  of  some  one  at  a  |)oint  be- 


vond  the  lioekv  .Mounlain- 


'I'here  ai'e  manv  men  in  this  State  who  are 


i^au'ed  ;;s  eommoii  carriers  in  the  transportation  of  the  produce  of  the 


eomit'.'\'  b\   land      One  of  these   men  reeeivt 


load  of  tloiir  on   board 


his  wa.u'on  for  the  purpose  of  (leli\eriiiif  it  at  some  iioiiif  on  the  Krie 
canal,  the  l)arrels  Ix-in;;'  marked  and  directed  to  a  tow  n  in  the  interior  of 
the  Stale  of  Maine.  The  carrier  nej^lects  to  make  a  special  eontraet  that 
tiis  liability  is  to  cease,  at  the  point  of  delivery  on  the  eaiial ;  but  lie  de- 
livers tli(^  Hour  111  ii'ood  order  on  the  canal,  and  the  property  is  for- 
wardeil  from  one  line  of  transportation  to  anollier  until  it  [lasses  into 
the  hands  of  the  last  carrier  on  the  route,  by  whose  want  of  care  it  is 
Id  under  such  eirenmstaiices  lie  ii  most  severe  and  liar.«)i 


lost.     It  won 

ride  of  law  which  should  make  the  person  who  tirst  undertook  the  trans- 
portation of  the  nrtiele  liable  for  its  loss."  JJhoades.  Senator,  in  Van 
Santvoord  v.  St.  .lolin.  supra. 

II  S  M.  &  W. -121  (1S41). 

'm  lOx.  "ilO  (1850). 
23 


354 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CAIUMEHS. 


[(II.  XI. 


I    i 


llic  (ttlicr  silk".  To  l)o  .sent  to  'l\)n|ii;iy  station  and  (l(li\- 
ci'cd  to  II.  C  Collins,  consiuiu'c,  or  liis  airmt.'"  One  of 
the  conditions  cxcinptcd  the  ('oni|):injj'  from  liability  for  loss 
Ity  lire.  'I'lic  (Jrcat  ^^'('stl•nl  Company  rcccivt'd  the  carriai:!' 
money  for  tlu' Avhole  distaiu'c  from  Hath  to  Torcjiiay.  On 
the  arrival  of  tiio  iroods  at  Jiristol  tlicy  were  [)ut  on  the  line 
of  the  defendant's,  \vlieri>  they  were  destroyed  hy  tii'e.  An 
action  heinu"  hronuht  aj>ainst  them  to  recover  for  the  loss,  it 
was  h(*kl  hy  the  Coui't  of  Kxche((ner  that  the  contract  was 
with  the  (Jreat  ^^'est"rn  Company,  ami  that  the  thdV'iidant 
company  was  not  liahle.  This  decision  was  reversed  hy  tiir 
Conrt  of  KxeluMpier  Chamher,''  hnt  the  case  heinti"  taken  to 
the  Ilonse  of  Lords  tin-  rnlinji' of  the  Court  of  Exche(|ucr 
was  held  rijiht.  "  I  think,'"  said  Lord  Ciiki.msi-oki),  "  thai 
the  contract  was  entire;  was  for  the  whok'  journey  from 
liath  to  Tor<|uay  and  was  made  with  tl^'  (Jreat  Western 
Railway  Comi)any  alone;  that  the  jjoods  were  carried  on 
the  defendants'  railway  under  the  contract,  and  that  the  de- 
fendants are  conse(|uently  either  not  lial)le  at  all,  as  no 
agreement  was  enteretl  into  with  them,  or  that  if  the  con- 
tract in  any  way  attaches  to  them,  the  exception  as  to  loss 
hy  tire  accomi)anios  it  and  exonerates  them  from  liahility."  '* 
In  Coxo)i  r.  (j'tTd/  Wrsfcni  llallirdi/  Coiiipaui/,^''  cattle 
were  delivered  at  the  London  Station  of  the  Shri'wshurv  tS!: 
Hereford  Railway  Company  to  he  carried  to  liirminirham. 
The  line  from  London  to  Shrewshury  helonjred  to  that  <'om- 
pany  ;  from  Shrewshury  to  liirminiiiiam  to  the  defendants. 
The  hill  of  ladinijf  contained  this  condition  :  '•  For  the  con- 
venience of  the  owner  the  company  will  receivt;  the  char«ivs 
[)ayahle  to  other  companies  for  conveyance  of  such  cattle 
over  their  lines  of  railway,  l>ut  the  company  will  not  he 
.sul)ject  to  liahility  for  any  loss,  delay,  default  or  damaii'c 
arisiiif^  on  suck  other  railway.''  One  sum  was  char<i-ed  for 
the  entire  carriajre,  which  was  to  he  collected  at  Birniin<r- 
ham.      The  cattle  were  injured   between    Shrewshury  and 

"l  II.  &  X.  T)!?  (ISrMJ). 

'^Diivi'tois  of  Hristol  U.  Co.  v.  <  O'liiis,  7  II.  I.,  ('as.  lUt  (]8">S). 

".")  II.  &  \.  •>:■{  (l.S(!0). 


(-11 


XI.] 


rONNKCTINd  CAUIMKltS. 


355 


liirminuiiani  on  tlio  line  of  the  coiwu'ii'iiiir  railuav.  In  an 
actinn  aiiiiinsf  this  company  it  was  iu-Ul  thai  llif  coatvart  for 
llic  entire  ciirriai^e  was  with  th(^  Slircwslmrv  »Sc  lU'rcfoi'il 
Railway,  and  that  the  (h'l'vndanl  was  not  liahU'.  KvfrrrinLr 
to  the  condition  in  the  l)ill  of  hidinjj.-,  Mijamwki.i.,  ,1.,  said: 
"  Th.cy  do  not  say  that  tlicy  will  not  carry  on  another  rail- 
way, hut  only  tiiat  they  will  not  lie  lial)lc  for  daniair'c  aris- 
inir  on  such  railway.  So  that  tluM-e  is  an  absolute  n-fusal 
of  liahility  for  damage,  hut  not  a  refusal  to  carr}'."  The 
Knirlish  doctrines  then  is  that  in  the  ahscnce  of  a  special  con- 
dition the  first  carrier  is  liable  to  the  dostination  ;  he  is  ex- 
clusively liable;  for  want  of  i)rivity  of  contract  the  con- 
nectinj2'  carriei"  can  not  be  sued  by  the  shipper  even  though 
his  nejiliiience  caused  the  loss."' 

§  240.  Til  Amerivan  Doctrine. — Although  all  the  argu- 
ments of  1(1  . .  enience  as  well  as  justice  are  in  favoi  of  the 
English  rule,  it  must  he  admitted  that  it  does  not,  excei)t  in 
a  few  Slates,  prevail  in  this  country.  The  fair  result  of 
the  American  cases  limits  the  liability  of  the  carrier,  Avhen 
no  special  contract  is  made,  to  his  own  line.'"  It  is  tru(sthat 
in  Illinois,"^  Tennessee,'"  Iowa,™  Florida'-'  and  New  Hamj)- 

I'Cases  just  cited  ami  followed  in  Collins  v.  Bristol  &o.  R.  Co..  11  Ex. 
700  (IS.-)!;);  Scothoiii  V.  South  Staffordshire  K.  (\>.,  8  Ex.  lUl  (lsr.:J) ; 
Myttoii  V.  .Midland  \l.  Co..  4  II.  &  N.  Gl.")  (18,")<,l) ;  Crouch  v.  Great  West- 
ern \l.  Co..  •-'  II.  A  N.  4!)1  (ltC)7) :  Great  Western  K.  Co.  v.  Crouch.  :$  II. 
it  X.  1S;{  (lsr)S) ;  Wilhy  v.  West  Cornwall  H.  Co..  :>  II.  ct  N.  70.$  (lsr)S)  ; 
Coxon  V.  (Jreat  Western  li.  Co..  .■>  II.  &  X.  274  (18tiO). 

'"  Mr.  Justice  Hunt  in  Railroad  Co.  v.  Trait,  -ll  Wall.  123  (1874). 

'"Illinois  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.  Frankenberj;-.  54  111.  88  (1870);  Erie  11.  Vo. 
V.  Wilcox,  84  111.  2;i9  (187(1);  Illinois  Cent.  li.  Co.  v.  Copehmd.  24  111. 
332  (18G0);  Chica},'o  Ac.  1?.  Co.  v.  People,  m  111.  3(J.")  (1870);  United 
States  Express  Co.  v.  Haines.  ('.7  111.  137  (1873) ;  Adains  Ex.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
son. 81  111.  330  (187G) ;  Illinois  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  34  111.  38i) 
(18G4);  Illinois  Cent.  It.  <'o.  v.  Cowles.  32  III.  IIG  (18C3) ;  Ohicaj^o  &i: 
It.  Co.  V.  Montfort.  GO  111.  17.")  (1871);  Field  v.  Chicajro  Ac.  It.  Co.,  71 
111.  4.")8  (1874)  ;  Milwaukee  »tc.  It.  Co.  v.  Smith,  84  111.  23!). 

w Louisville  &.v:.  It.  Co.  v.  Cainpl)ell.  7  Ileisk.  253  (1872) ;  East  Te.uies- 
see  i"ic.  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers.  G  Ileisk.  14;:  (1871) ;  Western  Ac.  It.  Co.  v. 
McElwee,  G  Ileisk.  208  (1871)-  Carter  v.  Hough.  4  Sneed,  203  (1850); 
East  Tennessee  Ac.  It.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  1  Coldw.  272  (18G0). 

*' Mulligan  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3G  Iowa.  181  (1873) :  Angle  v.  Mis- 
sissippi Ac.  It.  Co..  !)  Iowa,  487  (18.")',)). 

2' Bennett  v.  Filyaw.  1  Fla.  403  (1847). 


;?.')(; 


riir,  ((>Ni'KA(  rs  ov  cmivavms. 


[<ii.  \i, 


M 


\i      SH 


If*      i  ' 


sliii'i',"  the  Kn::li.sli  nih',  willi  oiip  cxcciilioii,  ol)t;;iiis,  iiiid 
thiit  ill  ( Jcoruiji -'' tlicMidciriiii' of  Miifii-hniiij)' s  ^ '^^^v',  willi  i(s 
soiiu'whiii  ;iii'<)ii;ii(ii!><  i\'>ul;,is  ;i(IIi!Ti'fi  lo.  15ut  in  Hie  oilier 
Staics  il  is  rcji'iird'.';!  ;is  tlir  .Vnu'ricaii  doclriiic  ihiii  wlicrc  a. 
(.'Ui'niT  rcci-ivcs  yoo'.l.-^  niarUcil  for  a  particular  (h'sliiialion, 
hcyond  tlic  routi'  for  wliirli  lie  i)rot'('.-s(>s  to  carrvand  hcvoiid 
liiti  (criniiius  vS  his  road,  lie  is  only  hoiiiid  lo  transport  and 
deliver  tlieiii  aecordinu'  to  the  esta.l)lislied  usa/ie  of  his  busi- 
ness and  is  -lol  liahle  for  losses  Ix-yond  his  own  line.-'^ 

§  241.  H7u'c/i  Ciirricr  Ma;/ hf  Sucil. — It  has  been  note(l 
that  one  (  f  the  eons(>(|uenees  of  the  Kni^lish  (loetriii(>  lias 
l)(>(Mi  to  restrict  tli(>  riirhl  of  action  ajiiuiist  the  first  carrier, 
even  thouiih  the  loss  or  daiiiau'i'  may  hav(>  occurred  t!irou<>;li 
the  fault  or  nea"Ie(  I  of  ihe  one  souuiil  to  l)e  chariicd,'-'' 
This  portion  of  the  Knii'iish  rule  has  been  rej<M'ted  in  Illin- 
ois, Tennessee,  Iowa  and  \\\v  ((IIkm'  States  which  have  fol- 
lowed Miificli(iiii p'ft  ('(isf,  hill  has  been  adhci'cd  to  by  the 
( J eorjiia  courts.-''     Outside  of  this  Slate  the  action   uill  al- 

•-'•-' Lock  (\).  V.  lJ:iil!(.:i(i.  IS  N.  |I.:'.;!'.I  ilS(i!l):  Cniy  v.  .I;icks<,n.  :.l  N. 
II.  1)  (IS71). 

'■'•'.MuslliT  V.  Sollllii'l'li  I'.x.  Co..  '.)•<  <i:i.  ;>7  (JSliS);  ( 'olicil  V.  Soul  lici'll 
K\.  Co..  !.")  (ia.  I  IS  (^1S7-J) ;  Soinlu'iii  Kx.  Co.  v.  .sjica.  ;;s  <;a.  .M'.i  ( isiis). 

-' Biirfoii--lis  V.  Xonvicli  iVr.  K.  Co..  100  .Ma-s. -JO  (lS(;s):  l',ai)rock  v. 
Lake  .Slioic  i^r.  1{.  Co..  ID  X.  Y.  K'l  (IS7-J);  J{ool  v.Crral  Wrslcni  I{. 
Co..  I.")  N.  V.  .")2t  (1S71);  J{>s'il  V.  riiitcil  States  lOx.  Co..  IS  N.  V.  > 
1 1S72) ;  Jomii'-ion  v.  Caiiidoii  Ovc.  It.  Co..  !  Am.  I,.  ]{i'ji'.  '2\'>'>  (ls,")(;); 
l-'.irnii'rs  i^ic.  Hank  v.  Clianipliin  'I'rans.  Co..  K;  Vl.  ,VJ  (ISII);  Cutis  v. 
Hraiii<M-(l.  12  Vt.  .">(■.()  (IS70)  :  (.'oiulict  v.  (Jraiid  Trunk  I?.  Co..  ."I'.t  N.  Y. 
rm  (lS7:i):  St.  .lolm  v.  Van  Saiitvoor(l.2.">  W.iid..  (Kill  (isil  ;  :  .v.  ,•.  (1  Hill, 
l.")V  (184:!) ;  Coiivcr.sc  v.  Xorwicli  ac  It.  Co..  :'<■'>  <'oiiii.  IiJi;  (ist;,')) ;  Lanili 
V.  Cainileii  Ac.  U.  Co..  IC  .X.  Y.  271  (1S71);  Darliu,';-  v.  IJostoii  Ac.  I?. 
Co.,  11  Allen.  2:1.")  (ISCm)  :  I'liillips  v.  Xortli  Caroliiia  IJ.C....  7S  X.  C.  2!)! 
(1S7S);  Hood  V.  XtMV  York  Ac.  I{.«'o..22  Conn.  .■>(»2  (is.-):));  I{ailroad 
Co.  V.  Pratt.  22  Wall.  12:$  (1S74) ;  IJailroad  Co.  v.  Maniifiiciurinjj;  (.'0..  Kl 
Wall.  :ns  (1-72);  Crawford  v.  Sonilicrn  It.  Assn..  ."il  .Mass.  222  (1S7.")); 
Camden  Ac.  II.  Co.  v.  For>yHi.  tJl  I'm.  St.  81  (isu;)) ;  Irish  v.  Milwaukee, 
Ac.  K.  Vv..  1!)  Minn.  :!7l5  (1872) :  Klmoiv  v.  \au<;atuck  K.  Co..  2:5  Conn. 
4.')7  (IS").-)):  Haltimore  Ac.  R.  Co.  v.  Schumacher.  2!l  Md.  1(18  (USdS) ;  Mc- 
MiMaii  V.  Micliij,'aii  Ac.  11.  Co..  10  Mich.  7!>  (18(17) ;  Brinliiall  v.  Saratoga 
Av-.  K.  Co.,  :!2  Vt.  OIJ."!  (181)0);  Inhabitants  v.  Hall,  (il  ."^le.  :>\7  (187:1); 
Sl;inner  v.  Hall,  f'.O  Mo.  477  (1872);  roiklns  v.  Portland  Ac.  J{.  Co.  47 
Mv.  r)7.'{  (18.-)!)) ;  Nutting  v.  Coiuicctletit  Ac.  li.  Co.,  1  Cray,  .■)()2  (18.-)4). 

*iA)Ur,  §  2:5!'. 

2"vlH.e,  §240. 


y^ 


il.  \I. 


CI! 


X..] 


(•<)Nm;(TI.\<;  cAi.'kiK 


357 


Mild 

Jili  il.s 
oilier 

Mtion, 
'voiid 

!ll)(l 

!)iisi- 


iiofcd 


llilS 


irnci', 
rough 
■iic  (I.  ■-'•■' 
'llli.i- 
(•  fol- 
V  the 
ill    ;il- 


•iillicrii 
(ISIi.s). 
I'lii'U  V. 
fill  I{. 


|s.")(i)  ; 
Ills   V. 


Hill, 
/mill 


i  I  road 

lUlklM! 

L'oiiii. 
;  Mo- 
il toga 
X7'.i) ; 
'o.  17 


Wiivs  lie  ;i'i.ir,.^t  \\iv  c'li'i'icr  in  \,1i.im'  .'ii.^l 
when  1 


oii\'  llie  <i-(U)(ls  were 


O-l    Ol'  (IlllMIIi'T 


§  212.    ( 'onsd-iicd'nit   It/  >Sj)(r!(il  Co/ifn/iis. —  Uul  even  in 


the  Slates  in  wiiich  the  Aiiieri;:iii  docti'lne  is  followed,  there 
iire  eiises  to  Ic/  nmiH!  in  wiiieh  cMrriers  h:ive  been  held  liiihle 
for  the  def;iil!ts  of  eniineelino'  lines.  This  has  lieeii  usnallv 
(III  the  <j;iMiiiid  ol"  a  >iie<'ial  uiiderlaUinir  eviileneed  in-  the 
terms  of  the  rei-eiiit  or  hill  of  ladinii'  iiiveii  for  the  o(„)ds, 
I^>canii)les  of   these  ure  shown  helow.-'      IJnt  this  iiia\  ofti-ii 


-•'  'I'lii'  lullowiiii^-  iii-iiuiiniiv-wi'i'c  li   lil  to  lie  tliroii,L;li  (•oiitiMcl-' : 

■•  \i  UMoM'  (  i.NTUAi,  Railway  CoweANv,  \ 
r.riM.iNCTON.  Sept.  i:i.  is;;(i.     j 

Kcccivi'ii  I'nnii  W  .  K.  Ia'wIs. 

1  liox.  \\oij;lit  ;(.■)() 
*•  JIai'U  iiiiil  iiuiiihcrs. 
W.  1{.  Lewis. 

IJidoklyii.  I<i\\:i. 
'•  Niiiiiticrcil   and  iiiarKi'd  a.-  aluivc.  wliicli   the  i'oiii])any   jii'uiniscs  to 


fornai'd  liv  its  railroad,  and  to  di'livcr  l( 


■or  oriler.  at   its  depot  in 


lie  or  tli:'V    tn-i 


avini;-  t'reiylil   for  Die  same,  at   the  rale  eiis 


tiiiiiavy  per  ton  of  2.(MtU  llis.     N.  ]{. —  ||'   nierehandise  he  ii(it  called  lor 
on  i:s  arris al.  it  will  he  siored  at  the  ri-l.  and  expense  ol  llie  owner. 

(i.  S.  Al'l'l.KTON. 

for  llie  Corporation." 
In  eonstrniiin' the  foifiiiiiim-  iiHlriunent  the  eoiirt    said:  •■  A   inajoriiy 
of  the  eoiirl  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  receipt  in  this  case  of  itself  con- 
slitnies  iiconliaei  hetween  the  parlies  iliat   the  defendants,  lieiiii;  coin- 


nioii  •.Mrriers.  woidd  lai 


d  !io\  to  its  destiiiiition — IJrooklvn.  li 


as  jier  the  niarU*  thereon.  A-  ii'Iviiii;  such  character  and  eff(>ct  to  the 
paper  iiku'Ii  iniporlaiiee  is  aitaclied  to  the  fact  that  the  hlanks  were  left 
iintilled."     ( 'lilts  V.  Uraiiieici.  fj  N't.  ."(Hi  (lS7(t). 

"  \e\\  York.  Now  I!.  Is.'i:!.  Keceived  of  .1.  II.  Schroeder.  six  hoxes, 
*  '*  lo  Ik  loiv,arded  p(  i  IIiid>on  J\iver  Jt.iilro.id  freij;ht  train  to  Uhi- 
ciJ.'io.""     Sch'iied.r  v.  liiidstni  River  li.  Co..  TiDiu'r.  T).")  (lS,"i.")), 

'I'lii'  tii~i  earlier  i.axe  a  reeei|il  for  cotlon  ••  to  he  dtdivered  on  pi'csent- 
atioii  Ol  till- receipt  al  Cliaries'ion.'"  The  cottiin  reached  the  terminus 
of    ill"   til-!   carrier  in  safety,  where  it   was  delivei'cd  to  a  connectinj;' 


iMi'iier  ;o 


he  plat 


)f  declination,  ia  wIiom'  charn'e  it  was 


losi.     T 


le    Uv<'    ca 


lier   W.I-    li'ld   liahle.     Kvie  v.   Laurens   li.  Co..  10 


Uieli.  (S,  C.)  :IS-J  (ISriV).  in  a  siiii  ai^ain--'  a  railroad  company  it  ap- 
pi'ared  that  a  licx  had  been  sent  iiy  the  iilaiutilf  ami  that  a  receipt  was 
.i;i\('ii  for  il  1)_\  the  C(  lupany  with  the  printed  Iieadiiiii' '•  throii<!;Ii  frei>!;!it 
<'oiitracl.'"  Anion;::  the  c(niditii;iis  atlac'ied  wa-  the  following:  ••  The 
responsi'iiliiy  of  this  conipaiiN  a>-   a  common  carrier  nnder  this  liill  of 


^gj^,-^,5gmw'«w7«. 


8A8 


TIIK  CONTHACTS  OF  rAIJIMKIJM. 


[C'll.  XI. 


ri'-ir:s 


m 


liuHiij;  to  Icniiiinitf  wlicii  thf  floods  arc  iiiilnailfil  from  llic  rar-  at  ilif 
|)1  ICC  of  (1(  Ihcry."  'I'lic  bill  of  lailiiijj;  aNo  ■^lipiilatcil  tliai  llic  rcs|poiisl- 
liilityof  tlic  company  should  (case  at  llic  icimimis  of  lis  road.  'I'lic  ev- 
idence showed  that  tliro\i;^h  ficlj;lil  wa<  iie\e|-  unloaded  at  the  lermlmis 
of  the  defendant'-'  road.  I»n!  Ilial  it  was  forwarded  to  the  place  of  de>ti- 
nalion  in  the  eai  in  winch  it  was  received.  It  was  lield  thai  tlie  com- 
pany w;vs  liahle  for  a  Io.>s  oi-cuiiinj;  l)eyond  liie  ternninis  of  ii>  own 
road.     'I'oledo  &v.  U.  Co.  v.  Merriman.  .VJ  III.  \-2:\  (ISC'.i), 

In  the  foliowin;;' iustaiiocs  the  caniers  weic  held  not  lialilc  foi  dcfanli- 
heyond  their  lin(>s.  When*  a  siamtt-  provided  ihat  lailroad  companies 
shoidd  not  l)e  liahle  for  ;L;oods  after  lliey  were  delivered  to  a  conncctinjj; 
carrier,  it  was  held  tliat  where  a  railroad  company  reccised  enods  I'n  a 
tliroiiijjh  rate,  payable  at  the  end  of  tlie  route,  and  jjavc  a  wrillcn  receipt 
to  that  effect,  tills  was  not  a  conlr.'ict  liindinj^  tin-  company  for  the  whole 
(INtance.  Kasf  Tenn.  K.  Co.  v.  Monlijomery,  1 1  (ia.  i.'7S(|S7l).  I'lie 
|)laintiff  delivered  a  packaec  addressed  to  the  con-ii.'.iiec  in  \ew  ^<irl». 
to  the  Soiitlieru  Kxpress  Company,  in  Mobile.  |>aid  (he  freight  for  the 
whole  (li-^tance.  ami  took  a  receipt.  >i|atiiij;  tliai  •■  lliis  company  is  to  for- 
ward the  same  to  its  atjent  nearest  or  most  con\enient  to  desiinalion 
only,  and  then  to  deliver  llie  same  to  oilier  parlies,  iliey  to  complete  the 
tr.insporiation;  such  delivery  to  terminate  all  liability  of  tlie  companr 
for  sncli  packa;;c.*"  'I'lic  company's  route  i-xlcnded  no  farther  ilcui 
Lynchlmr;;;,  from  which  point  ihe  packa^jc  wa<  carried  by  the  Ailam- 
Express  Coinpan\  to  New  'I'oik.  niidcr  an  arraiijifnient  by  which  the 
two  companies  sliari'd  in  tlie  trei!;lit  i>rii  ni/n  for  the  w  hol<'  distance. 
'J'lie  jiackago  was  safel>  delivered  lo  the  Adams  i;xitrc,«<  Company  at 
I,ynchhnr<i',  hnt  was  iitMcr  received  in  New  York.  It  was  held  ihat  ilie 
Adams  Kxpress  Company  was  the  aei-nl  of  the  Soiiiliern  Mxpress  <'(ini- 
pany  within  tln^  mcaniiij;'  of  ilie  receipt,  and  that  Ihe  latter  coni|>aiiy 
wa.s  liahle  for  the  los<.  St.  .loiiii  v.  Kxpress  Co..  I  Woods.  Cl-i  (ISTI). 
An  express  ci^mpany  rec<'ived  a  packa<;;e  of  money  from  a  bank  at  '1' 
to  be  transmitled  lo  K.  and  in  its  recei|)t  it  iindi  rtdok  to  forward  it  to  tlie 
nearest  i)lace  of  desiinalion  reached  by  this  company;  by  the  conditions 
in  tli«>  receipt  tlie  com|)any  was  not  to  be  lialilc '•  cxeejjt  as  forwarders 
only,  or  for  any  tlefanlt  or  neiilijjcnce  of  any  iiersoii  or  corporation  to 
whom"  the  jiackage  should  be  delivered,  "at  any  place  off  the  cvtalilishcd 
route  run  by  tliis  comiiany."  and  sik  h  peisoii  or  corjioiation  was  to  In- 
taken  to  be  the  ajjent  of  the  consi/jjiior.  To  leacli  I,  the  jiackajic  was  lo 
be  eariled  by  three  other  express  eompanies.  but  tlie  consi^invs  at  K 
refns<'d  to  receive  it.  and  directed  it  to  lie  iciiiined  to  T.  to  wiiicli  place 
it  was  returned  by  the  same  routes.  On  its  arrival  tliere  and  leinrn  to 
the  hank,  it  was  found  that  part  of  the  iiiomy  had  bei'ii  abstracted.  The 
court  held  that  the  company  receiving'  the  packii^e  under  tlie  conditions 
recited  w<'re  only  liable  at  most  as  *'airiers  to  the  end  of  its  route,  iiud 
beyond  that  only  as  forwarders:  ami  tlial  in  an  action  by  ihe  bank 
against  the  receivinjj  company  the  jury  should  have  bciMi  iusiructed  ihat 
if  the  evidence  satisfied  IIkmii  lliat  the  loss  had  ni>t  occurred  on  ihe  loiile 
of  the  defendant,  either  in  n'oin<;'  or  lelurninu'.  biii  on  seme  nther  pan 


illki; 


^ 


('II.   XI 


ilt  tl|^■ 
'pnlisi- 
I'lli-  .-v- 

•  ■niiimi-i 
if  (loli- 

llC   I'Olll- 


UC!.i|||N 

ii|iiiiiic- 

lllfclilljr 

"II  il 
I  j'cct'ipi 

<•  Wlluli' 

'III.' 

for  ili(« 

•  In  |'(p|-- 

liniitimi 

•  Ific  llll' 
'iniiiinr 

IMII 
Ills 
lirli  llic 
istMlicc. 
piiiiy  Ml 
iiMl  I  lie 
■s  ( 'oin- 
'iiipjiiiy 
(1^71). 
Ik  ill  T 
t  In  lllc 
iiiilidiis 


t  \{.   XI 


.T     11 

Adii 


viinl 


crs 


ilioM  lo 

l>]islMMl 


lo  I 


it' 


was  lo 
<  at  I, 
1  place 

mil  to 


'J'l 


liti 


10 

oils 
ami 


o;!iil. 


lai 


I  I 


;-oiit(. 
I'an 


•] 


(;<)NXK( TlXd  CAIMMKIIS. 


;{;')!» 


uf  llic  roiilc.  aiiit  lliat  in  llir  pfifonnaiu'i'  of  lis  dniics  as  a  forwiinltT.  il 
hail  iiscti  n'asoiialiii'  (lilliij;fiiic  in  ilic  st'lci'lion  of  proper  canieiN.  ilie 


ijefeiiilillll    Woillil    liol    he  lialile.      In  |||i>  ease  Siiii 


"Wool 


i,  .1. 


till: 


'IN 


holil  llial  a  forwaiiler  nieiely  is  hoiiiiil  noi  merely  lo  eloar  his  own  sl»iil-. 
nf  iiej,'liu;enee.  hiil  lo  prove  when,  where  ami  how.  Ilii-  loss  oi  cnrietl. 
woiiM  lie  to  impose  upon  him  an  olilipiiion  wliieli  attaches  only  to  a  ear- 
lier, ami  nol  loan  onlinary  hailee  for  iilre.  A  carrier  w  ho  is  iioiiiiil.  ai 
all  eseiils.  to  deliver  safely.  iim»t  hiiii^i  himself  hy  positive  evidence  williiii 
the  exceptions.  Not  so  an  ordinary  liailce.  Ii  isenoii;fii  forliim  lo  sali>fy 
;i  jury.  Iiy  tlie  liesi  evidence  in  iiis  power  liial  he  has  performed  Ids  duly 
with  care  and  lldelily.  and  llial  Ihe  loss  has  nol  risen  from  anv  defanll  of 


liimself  or  Ids  servanlH. 


American  Kx.  ( 'o.  v.  Second  N'aliomd  Hank,  tl! 


!'a.  St.  :}!tf  f  i^i"!).  Astipulation  in  llie  receipt  of  an  exiiressmaii  for  a 
pack:i;.!;e  aildrcs^ed  to  a  consi^i-iice  al  a  pariicnlar  place  in  a  ceriain  city 
iliat  il  ••  is  to  lie  forwanleil  to  our  ajjem-y  lu'arcst  or  most  conveiiienl  to 
d''-iinalion  only." /«■/</ not  to  disciiarne  the  expressman  from  all  lialiilit.\- 


iiiieriiian  for  llie>afc  delivery  of  the  pa 


Il  his  own  place  of  Imsine-s 


in  llial  city,  and  its  safe  keepiii;,^  lliere  upon  arii\al.  If  he  liasa>;ciils  tin  le 
w  iio  lialiitiially  deliver  siicii  packa<j;es  accordiii;;  to  tiie  >pccial  addrc»-  of 
cacli.  he  is  lioiinil  to  deliver  llie  packai^c  as  it  i«  specially  addressed  accnnj- 
inj;  lo  the  rcasonalile  nsa,y;es  of  his  Imsiness.  Snllivan  v.  'i'hompson.  !»ii 
Mass.  "i.")'.*  (l.SiiS).  'I'lie  fact  thai  a  company  doiii^  Imsiness  as  common 
carriers  l»et  ween  particular  points  have  iiitriisied  Itiank  envelopes.  ha\  in;;' 
their  name  printed  upon  tlicm.  to  a  ciisiomer  for  convenience  in  "enilin<;' 
money.  do(!s  not  enaltle  him  lo  charge  llieni  as  common  carriers  for 
losses  beyond  their  roiile.  Iiy  adtliessiii^  the  envelope  containin;j  money 
lieloii^;in^  to  plaintiff,  a  liiird  person,  lo  a  place  lieyond  the  end  of  the 
route,  ami  delivering'  il  to  liieni  to  he  transmitted.  So  held  where  tlie 
receiitt  driven  hy  the  carriers  lo  siicii  ciislomer  for  the  i)acka^e.  exinessly 
excliitled  liahilily  beyond  ihe  lerminiis.  l'emler^a>l  v.  .Vdiims  Kxpress 
<'(>..  101  Mass.  l-H)  (isr.li).  The  supeiintendent  of  the  defendant,  a  rail- 
road company,  wrote  a  letter  to  il.  sayin;;  llial  tiie  company  had  made 
arraii;;emeiils  for  sending-  cotton  tlinm^h  to  New  York  Iiy  its  ow  ii  and 
comiectin^  lines  willionl  detention,  and  soliciting;'  his  l)ii>incss.  A 
showed  the  letter  to  B.  w  ho  shipped  ceriain  cotton  to  .New  York  on  ile- 
defendanfs  railroad  and  conncclin^  lines  as  described  in  the  letter.  The 
conn  li<>ld  tliat  as  Ii  had  not  nolilied  the  defendant  that  he  had  shipped 
the  cotton  under  the  terms  of  llie  letter,  llie  letter  did  not  constitute  an 
i'xpn 

defendant  lialile  for  delay  occmrin^  beyond  tiie  lermimis  of  its  own  line. 
Kast  Tennessee  Ac.  J{.  Co.  v.  Mont;;omery,  44  Ga,  27>^  (1871).  Acoiitract 
between  a  c()nsi;;iior  and  an  express  company  wliich.  by  its  terms,  is  to 
terminatt^  upon  the  delivery  of  llie  packan'e  at  a  lerlaiii  point  lo  aiiotlier 
<'(inii)any  to  complete  the  transportation,  and  wliicii  contains  no  jirovi- 
sioii  as  to  llie  liability  of  tlie  second  company,  can  have  no  effect  in  de- 
termining siicli  lial)ilily  in  llie  absence  of  any  arraniiciiicnt  between  the 
two  companies  for  the  transportati<m  of  packages  over  the  entiro  route. 
Witbeck  V.  Holland."..-.  IJarb.  44;{  (1S70) ;  C'oates  v.   U.S.  Ex.  Co.,  4.-. 


•onlracl  for  the  Iransporlalion  of  the  cotton,  so  as  to  make  tli 


^- 


'M\() 


Till'.  coNTit  vers  or  <\i;i!iK.i!s.  [cm.  XI. 


|L.> 


m- 


?■< 


Im-  >li(iu  m  w  illnHil  Mil  ('\|>n'>->  roiili'Mct  Itv  t'vidclicr  iinlicMl- 
iiitf  till  iiih'iilioii   (liiit  the  cMrrijii:!'  >lioiil<l  lie  llirdiiuli  :  ms  1i\ 

Mo.  "JUS  (|S7(I).  All  fS|ir(«-  roiii|i;ili.\  iiir'iM'il  III  (hlciinu  ii  |i'ii'K;i;.'.t' 
III  liiiiik  III  IN  iii;irKi'il  "  IliiiiK  mI  l);illiiii.  (ii'tn;;'i;i.  \\lii('li  \M'  iiinlrnuUt'  to 
lorwiinl  lo  I)iilioii.  |htIN  ol  iiiivliijillon  csi't'iiicij ;  aiul  it  1^  IhtcIiv  cs- 
prt's^Iy  jlltl'ccd  tll.'ll  lllis  coliipMliy  sil'i-  liol  lioliml  for  |o>.i  orililllliliTi'  r\ri'|il 
:is  I'oiwiiriicis  only."'  'I'lir  linr  ul  lln'  roiii|i.iii\  cinlt'd  ill  \i'v\  Voi|>. 
TIm-  i'oiii'I  IicIiI  iliiit  ii  w.i-  iioi  ilii'  i|iil>  ol  ilic  ('oiii|iiiiiy  lo  i.tri)  ihc 
pjickii;;!'  to  |),'ilton.  prr-ciit    ii   to  ijir  luiiik   lor  ri'ili'iii|ition.  uihI   ii'i'civ)' 

illlll  I'cliM'll  tllr  lirocccd-.  or  if    not   rrijii'iiH'iI.  to  I'cllll'll  tJK'  pilfKilUi' ;    '"I! 

Iliiit   it   wii-  oiil\  till'  (Inly  of  till'  i'oni|i;iiiy  to  (mi  ry  it   to   New   'tiiikjinii 

jpIiicc  it   ill    till'    iliimls  of   ii  colillcrliiiM'  r,ilii;i:ill.V.       Itccil    \.   llliti'il    Slate 

K\.  Co..  I-'  N.  Y.  HI'J  ils7i.'!.  WliiTi'  rottoii  is  in  Im>  tr.iii-|iorii  (i  from 
oiii' poll  to  .iiiotiiri'.  pai'tly  li\  sii'Miiirr  iiiid  pai'tl,\  liy  railroad,  and  llic  liill 
of  ladiiii^.  coxcriii;;  llir  wliolr  lonii'  for  wliidi  an  ciuiic  fn'i;;iil  i>  paid, 
excepts  tlie  daiiicer  of  lire,  and  till'  cotioii  i«  Imiiied  liy  spaik-  from  a  |o. 
eomoti\('.  tlie  owner  niii-t  liear  ilir  lo-«,  ((akey  v.  (iordon.  7  I. a.  Ann. 
'JM.'i  (IS-'iL').  And  a  iK.liee  tliat  llie  earrier  will  iioi  lie  ii'-ponsilde  for  lia^- 
irajje  lieyond  Ids  own  line  will  he  valid  a-  iiiiain^t  tlie  pas«eni,ri'i'.  alllioii;;li 

lie  reeeives  the  fare  for  tl iitire  route,  liie  notice  s!;iiii,M'  tii^ii  III,,  carrier 

acteij  as  ap'iit  of  the  coniiectiii;;  carriers.  I'cnn>yl\ania  It.  ( 'o.  v. 
Sc!iwar/,cnlier;r,'r.  I.">  I'a.  St.  "JOS  (isi;:!).  An  e\|ire--  company  j^ave  a 
receipt  for  ;;()ods  marked  ••  .\.  Kin;:'.  ( 'liftoii  lloiisc.  \\  iml-or.  \.  S..  ( '. 
<).  1)..  ii!i:i7il.  from  'rmiier's  Kxpress.  Hostoii.  .^I.i-s."  |i  appeared  tli.ii 
'riiriier's  KN|iress  was  a  conncctiii^j' carrier.  I'ainl  c\idcncc  wa>  admit - 
led  to  prove  tlie  i,ieanin;r  of  ilic  mark  ■■('.(>.  |».."  ami  thai  it  meant 
■■  collect  on  delivi  ry."  'I'lie  defendant  offered  then  to  pio\e  tliat  liy  llie 
custom  ami  nndersiandin;;  of  e\pre>s  com|>anies  and  tlie  piiMic.  this 
meant  tliat  llie  money  menlioiKMl  was  to  he  collecied  on  deli\(r,\  to  .\. 

Kin<;:  hut  tli iirt  liehl  that  Ihc  contract  wa>  a   plain  one  lo  collcet  on 

delivery  to  Tiiriier's  Kxpress  romp;iny:  tiiat  the  c.  idenee  was  therefore 
not  admissihle.  and  llial  the  defendant  wa^  lialilc  for  not  haxiii;;'  col- 
lected the  money  from  'rnrner's  Kxpress  (  ump.in^.  noiw  illisiaiidine;  it 
liad  receive(l  the  ji'oods  under  a  conlract^liinitiii:j  its  liahilily  to  dama;;e 
or  loss  ((ceiirriii;?  <in  its  own  line,     ('olletider  v.  hinsinore.  .'i,">  \.  \.  •J(l() 

(IS7:{). 

'I"he  follow  in;;-  instrument  was  iieid  hy  the  Supreme  Court  of  ('onnee- 
ticiit  not  to  lie  ii  throii;ih  contract. 

>•  N'f.w  V(h;k.  Ma\  7.  isiil. 
••  I{eceivcd   from  .lolin   .M.  Pendleton  iV   ('o..iii  ;;dod  order,  on   lioaril 
the  Norwicli  and  Worcester  Boat.  Iionnd   for  Stafford.  ('!..  tlie  follow  in;; 
jiaeka^lfes : 

••Sixtv-two  ((!2)  Hales  Wool.  11.7."><;  His. 
"  Marks. 

■•  A. 

'•  K.  .\.  ('on\er«e  v\^-  Son.  ('.  of  H. 

"Stalford.  t'l.  Tarker."' 


1:1 


'II.   M. 


(11.   XI 


(•<»\Ni'.rri\(i  cAKifir.itH. 


;u;i 


IIKIIC.-It- 

ii^  ll\ 


I'l.'lltl-  let 

fi'  <'\rt'|it 
YoiK. 

■:iir\  I  lu- 
ll'ri'i',  !■ 

!;'■:  Inn 
I  <>i'k  Mini 

I  Slates 

i|    flnlii 

I  ilii'  liill 
i^  I'iiiil. 
I'lii  .'I  III. 
.M.  Ann. 
fMrlKi-- 

lllllnl|;iil 


iirri 


IT 


Xiivr  :i 
I.  S..  (  '. 
<'i|  lli.'it 
»  .'nlinil- 
'  nicaiit 
il  liy  the 
|lii\  ihU 
'>  lo  A. 

'iil'Ct    (III 


•icfdl 


iilin,:L,^  It 
<!iiin:i;,'t' 

.  \.  •2m 


•  niiH'c 


I  si;  I. 

JMianl 
liiwirii; 


tlic  ic(ci|)l  Itvtlic  iii>i  canici' uf  llic  fr('i;^lil  chiirocs  fdi' Hie 
ciilirc  (lisdiiitc,'"  or  uilicr  rlicmiiHtiiiiccs  rjiisiiiir  »  -iiiiilur 
|»r»'suin|)ti(in.-'''  .\!nl  wIhtcm  piirliKTsliip  hclwccii  a  iminltci' 
of  ciirricrs  t-xisis  hv  wliii-h  Ihcv  arc  lo  divide  the  protits  and 
losses  of  the  entire  Irallir,  aiiv  oni- of  liie  earriei's  inav  l)i^ 
lirl<l  lialde  fill-  loss  of  dama;i:c  oeeiirriiiii  on  any  pari  of  the 
associated  line."' 

It  wa-  a-iit'rd   liy  III"  iiaiiii-  tli.ii  liic  \\,.i,l   nriun.il   in  llii- n  cii|it 

wa-  lal^cii  nil  liiianl  't'lic  ('il\  uf  IIii-m.ii.  uin  nl  ilic  -ai'iiinliuat' cif  ilc- 
liiKlaiils.  ami  fanicij  lu  \r\\  l.iiiiilini.  ami  ilirri' lamli  d  ami  put  inlu  a 
(|c|Mii  linililin;,'  <in  the  wliaif  ilnilii;;  llii'  ni^lii  ol  tlial  ila.v.  ami  llial  il 
was  tiicic  (lt'>lni\('il  li\  lire  uii  tlii'  afiiMiKniii  uf  iIh-  m\t  (la\ ,  wliirli  was 
SiMuIa.v.  'I'lii'ic  wa-  a  ruiilraci  fur  the  ilnuiij.fli  i  ariia;;c  uf  fn  iulil  lic- 
Iwi'f'ii  ilic  (li'fi'mlanl  ami  a  railruail  i'uin|iaii,v.  'I'Ik'  ilcft'iiilantV  line  Icr- 
iiiiiiaii'd  at  New  i.umliMi.  wlicii'  Ilic  railroad  tiniM-oinniciicRd.  I'lii-  de- 
pot wliei-e  llie  ifoods  were  -tored  was  tlie  place  (hwiirnaled  for  llie  di'liv- 
vvy  of  <iuol!^  fi'om  llie  ilefemlani  to  ilie  railroad  eunipanv.  'I'lie  eunrt 
said:  "I'puii  a  earefal  and  delilieniie  eunsideratiun  of  it  [lie'  evi- 
deneej.  we  are  satislled  tliat  It  did  not  saii^fy  llie  jury  in  tindlii^  a 
eontraet  to  eairy  tlie  \suul  to  Siaffoid.  alone,  or  in  eoiniian.\' wiili  iIh' 
noi'iliern  luad:  and  llial  il  doe«  show  an  aetiial  delivery  to  llial  ruad.  as 
an  independeiii  ami  next  carrier  in  a  line,  and  a  perfoiinanee  ul  all  lliat 
llie  defendants  iinpliedly  iind<'rtooK  to  do.""  ( 'miver-e  v.  Nui  \>  icli  iVc. 
li.  Co.,  ;t;i  »'unn.  ICiii  (,IMm). 

'"'  Itt-ed  V.  Saralo;,M\e.  i:.  (o.  l:»  Wend.  .Mil  (Isits^;  Si.  .lulin  v.  K\- 
prt'KS  (;o..  1  Woods.  (;12  (1S7I):  l'.er;j  v.  Narrajxan-eit  Steani.-liip  ("u..  ."> 
I)aly,:i!il  (ISTI)  ;  Camlee  v.  t'ennsylvania  U.  Cu.. -Jl  Wis.  ."iS-J  ( |st;7) : 
Kailruad  Co.  v.  AndroscoM;;;i,,  MJHs.  ■>■>  Wall.  .V,)l  (,1S7I). 

-'•'  In  ascei'taininjx  the  rclaiiun  existinji;  lielwcen  eonneeiin^  lines  of 
carriers  the  parties  are  iioi  contined  to  what  is  said  in  the  hill  ul'  ladin;;'; 
lint  the  shipper  may  introdnce  the  way  hills  of  the  carrier  with  whom  his 
eontraet  was  made,  the  .-laii'iiienlMif  llie  aiccnts  of  I  he  carrier  made  when 
(he  hill  of  ladin;:  w as  i;i\en.  or  any  special  contract  or  nmlcisiandinj; 
hehveen  the  parlies  al  the  time  the  ;:;uuds  were  shipped.  S!..(ohn  v. 
K.spri'ssCo..  I  Woods.  (;I2  (1S71).  Uohinsun  v.  Merclianis  Dispaleli  Co., 
■iTt  Iowa.  I7(t(l.s77):  Root  v.  <;reai  Wesicin  }{.  Cu..  ir.  N.  Y.  .VJl  (IS71); 
Uailroad  Co.  v.  I'ralt.  J-J  Wall.  P-M  (^1S7I):  Hill  Manf;,M'u.  v.  HosKni  »lie. 
K  Co..  104  Mass.  t-J-J  (IS7(»);  (iniinhy  v.  Vandert)ill.  17  N.  V.  :?(lli  (\s:tS). 

"'  Wliere  one  railroad  company  aur<'e-  wilh  anotlier  for  a  cunijiletn 
system   of  interchange  of  IraHictVum  all  the  siatiuns  of  one  eunijiaiiy, 


and  Itovond  its  limits  t 


u  all   |>a 


ris  of  the  oilier  coniiiany  and  l)ey<nid  its 


limits  with  lliron;jli  ticl<e|s.  ilnoniih  rales,  and  invoices,  and  inlerelian<,'e 
of  slock  al  jnneiioiis.  the  stuck  of  the  two  cumpanies  to  he  treated  as 
one  stock,  and  that  tliey  should  assist  each  otlier  in  every  way,  as  if  llio 
wliule  concern,^  of  the  two  v>unipanic-  were  ainalj;aiiiated,  eitliereomiiany 


.lKii^««n*!»Sl*!ei»>T<*«!>r-f»ra«(>>«-j^ 


3()2 


THK  CONTUACT8  OF  (AKIUKKS. 


[("H.   Xl. 


3tf  .' 


U- 


§  24ii.  UV/f^n  Coniiccd'iH/  (■ttn't'cr  Mat/  (  'hilnt  Exemplionx 
in  First  Contract. — A  bill  of  huliiijr  luiiy  |)i-()viik'  that  its  stip- 
ulations shall  cxtciid  to  and  cniin'  to  tlu^  Ix'ncHt  of  each  and 
every  company  or  person  lo  whom  the  carrier  issuiii<>:  it  may 
entrust  or  deliver  the  jjroperty,  in  whicii  ease  its  terms  will 
define  and  limit  the  lial)ility  of  every  succeedinii'  carrier." 
And  in  the  absence  of  an  expicss  provision  to  this  effect  a 
connectinju^  carrier  who  receives  j^oods  from  aiu)ther  to  he  for- 
warded to  theii'  destination  is  entitled  to  the  I'xcejjtions 
which  the  latter  has  made  with  the  shij)per,  in  casi'  the  con- 
tract with  the  oriirinal  carrier  was  for  the  entire  route. '-     Tiic 

will  Iw  held  as  the  aj^ciil  of  ilic  other  fur  inakiiij;'  ('(Hitiaets  as  lo  cairiajie 
of  fieiniitover  its  load,  (illl  t.  Maiirhesier  ^c.  |{.  Co..  [,.  I{.S(^.  H.  VM\ 
(1S7I5 1.  If  two  e\|ir('ss  coiiipaiiies  nimiinu'as  cafi'iers  over  one  coiuimioiis 
route,  and  divldinij  in-olits.  employ  one  inessenirei-  who  has  the  ;;oods  in 
chaiue  dininj;-  the  whole  tiansil.  and  who  l)y  :i:ri»'<'inent  lietwceii  tin' 
eoinpanies.  is  icnafded  as  the  a;;eiil  of  oni'  eompanv  oidy  np  to  a  eeitaiii 
point  on  the  liin-.  anil  as  thea^'ent  of  Ihe  othef  eonipany  fioni  thein'e  to 
the  end  of  the  line,  it  wonld  >eein  that  the  tiist  eompany  eonid  not  feliesc 
itself  from  responsihility  by  ;;i\inj^  a  iceeipt  to  the  eonsiiciioi-  -tipnlaiing 
that  the  liahility  of  the  (dini)any  .  '  nld  cease  on  deliveiy  of  the  f;i)ods 
receipted  for  to  another  carrier,  elaiminn' thai  the  two  eompanies  were 
different,  and  that  the  nn-sseii^er  (••■aM'd  to  lie  the  ajit'iit  iit  the  liist  car- 
rier at  the])oinl  mentioiH-d.and  hecann>  theaj;'enl  of  tliesi-coinl  company 
from  that  time,  and  that  the  los-  occurred  beyond  the  point  on  the  liiu' 
thus  a;;r(  3d  upon  as  bein^thc  dividing;'  point  l)etween  the  two  companies. 
Hchnlter  v.  Adams  ]v\pre>s  Co.,  (I  Cent.  L.  .F.  I7"i  (1S7S;  ami  see  Wilson 
V.  (.'hesai)euke  itc.  K.  (_'o..  21  (Jratt.  (I.M  (1S72);  Carter  v.  IVck.4  Sneed. 
2(i;5  (1S.-)G);  Mont^'om<"ry  itc.  J{.  Co.  v.  Moore..")!  Ala.  :t!i4  (IS74):  Ells- 
worth V.  Tartt. -'()  Ala.  IWW  (Is.").")) ;  l{riej.s  v.  Vanderbilt.  I'J  Harh.  •_'2-' 
(is."),"));  Gass  v.  New  York  &e.  <'o..  '.Ill  Mass.  -liO  (ISCS);  Woyland  v. 
Elkiiis.  Holt,  X.  1'.  227.  I  Stark.  272  (ISHl);  Laiii^her  v.  I'ainter.  .')  IJ.  & 
C.  .-)47  (1S2(;);  Cobb  v.  Abl)ot.  11  Pick.  2S1I  (ls:!;{)  :  I'attison  v.  Hlaneh- 
ard,  r)X.  Y.  IHti  (Is.l ) ;  Converse  v.  Norwickitc.  Trans.  Co..  ;i:{  Coim.  Wt 
(18«5);  Cincinnati  i^c.  I{.  Co.  v.  Spratt.  2  Dnv.  4  (lS(i."));  Hart  v.  ]{eiis- 
selaer  L<:e.  Ji.  <'o..S  N.  Y.  :{7  (IS.".;!);  Hostwick  v.  Chamiiion,  II  Wend. 
.•>7l  (IK54);  Champion  v.  J?ostwick.  IS  Wend.  17."»  (ls:(7);  Froniont  v. 
Coiipland.2  Hini--.  170  (IS24). 

•"  I'nitcd  States  Kxi)ie>s  ("o.  v.  Harris.  ."»!  Iml.  127  (Is7")):  T^evy  v. 
Sonthcrn  Express  Co..  4  S.  C.  2;{4  ris72). 

*•  Majfhoe  v.  Camden  Ac  II.  Co..  45  N.  Y.  .")I4  (1S71) ;  ^Maidiattan  Oil 
Co.  V.  Camden  iV:c.  U.  Co..  ")!  N.  Y.  \'M  <X1\\) :  l-ainb  v.  Cainde.M  itc.  K. 
Co..  2  Daly.  451  (Isii!))  ;  .s.  c.  4<)  N.  Y.  271  (Is7n.  A  bill  of  la.lin-r  was 
jriven  in  (Jeorgia  by  the  Evansville  and  Crawfordsville  Railway  Com- 


en.  xi. 

nptions 
its  slip- 
K'li  and 
it  iiiiiy 
iiis  will 
irrici-." 
■ffi'ft  ii 
Ik'  f«»r- 
cptioiis 

10   COIl- 

Thc 


'II.  XI.]  rO\NK(TI\«  CAKKIEU8.  .'563 

<'()impctin<i:  carrier  is  here  the  airoiit  of  tlio  first  one  and  can 
legally  claim    the   Ix'iiotit   of    any  contract   made  with   his 

paiiy.  an  Iiuliaiia  ennipiniy.  for  rottoii  sliipiu'U  to  Boston.  Tin;  bill  of 
liKllnu:  was  a  contnii't  for  the  cntin;  rontc.  It  stipnlatcil  that  npon  ar- 
rival of  the  cotton  at  Kvansviile.  Indiana,  and  delivery  of  liie  same,  tlic 
company  would  receive  and  forward  the  cotton  to  its  destination  upon 
the  followiiii;-  conditions:  •• 'I'liat  the  shipper,  owner  and  consignee  do 
iierel)y  release  tlie  sjiid  company  and  the  itoats  aiul  railroads  with  which 
they  connect,  from  t'.ie  acts  of  Providence,  or  from  damage  or  loss  by 
lire  or  other  casually  while  in  depots  or  p'.aces  of  trans-shipment;  also 
damage  or  delays  by  unavoidable  accident;  al.-^o  los>  h\,  lire,  collision 
or  dangers  of  navigation."'  Helow  and  jirinted  in  red  ink.  was  the  fol- 
lowing coiiditioti :  "'riie  Kv;<.usville  and  Crawfordsville  llailroad  Com- 
pany will  not  be  liable  for  loss  or  tiamage  by  th'c.  from  any  cause  what- 
t\('r.'"  The  colton  was  binned,  without  the  fault  of  the  railroad  com- 
|i;.iiy  on  which  it  was  carried,  liefore  it  got  to  the  Kvansvilh!  and  Craw- 
foidsville  Hallway:  and  it  was  eonlendc<l  thai  the  case  was  gov<'rned  l)y 
tiie  condition  printed  in  red  ink.  and  that  this  eoi.dition  only  ap|)lied  to 
|(i-ses  on  the  railroad  cf  tlie  contracting  company,  and  not  to  losses  oc- 
I'liring  on  a  connei-ting  line,  and  Iteforc  the  cotton  had  ri^ached  the  rail- 
ii.ad  in  Indiana,  and  had  been  there  received.  15ut  the  court  held  that 
the  contract  evidenced  by  the  bill  of  lading  was  a  tlirough contract,  that 
!he  condition  printed  in  red  ink  applied  to  the  entln^  transit,  and  that 
ihe  defendant  was  not  answerMile  for  the  loss.  Jlailroad  L'o.  v.  Andros- 
coggin Mills,  -ll  W:dl.  .■)!)4  (1871.).  The  plaintiff  being  in  charge  of 
sheep,  put  Ihem  on  a  train  on  the  North  Hiitish  Itiilway  Comi^any  under 
a  contract  to  send  them  from  A  to  X.  The  ]ilaiuliff  paid  no  fare,  and 
iiavcled  under  an  agreement  with  the  company  that  he  should  not  hold 
ihe  I'oinpany  bound  for  any  loss  uv  injurv  that  might  hapjien  to  himself 
howsoever  occasioned,  on  the  journey  for  which  it  was  used.  The  line  of 
the  North  llritish  JJailwav  ('oini)any  teiininated  at  M;  and  from  that 
jioint  the  plaintiff  and  Ids  sheep  were  carried  in  the  same  cars  in  which 
they  bad  started  in  c'liitinuation  of  the  journey  to  N  over  the  road  of 
the  Noriheasiern  Huihvay  Company,  the  cars  in  which  the  plaintiff  and 
his  slice])  were  traveling  being  attached  to  the  tr.iin  of  the  last  named 
company,  under  arrangements  belween  tli"  'i\m>  companies.  After  tlic 
train  left  M  it  was  run  into  by  auwther  train  of  the  last  named  company, 
owing  to  the  negligence  of  its  servants.  It  was  lield  that  the  ticket 
uiuler  which  the  p.'aiuliff  traveled  meant  that  he  should  be  at  his  own 
risk  during  the  w  lii.le  journey,  and  enured  to  the  beuellL  of  cither  com- 
jiany.  Blackburn.  . I. .said:  "It  is  clear  that  this  is  the  true  coiistriic- 
lion  of  the  ticket:  •  In  I'ousideiatiou  of  my  being  carried  the  whole  w.iy 
free  of  charge.  I  agree  Ihal  1  shall  be  traveling  Ihe  whole  way  at  my  own 
;i-K."  "  Mail  v.  North  Ka-lein  IJ.  Co..  I,.  K.  10  ().  B.  !;57  (kS")).  Hut  in 
Kngl.iud  the  iiucstion  can  hardly  l)e  of  moment  as  under  Ihe  rule  of  thai 
eouniiv  Ihe  right  of  aeiioii  is  conliued  to  ihe  lirs!  compi.nv  in  all  I'ases. 


::v 


,^T?!^'r'^'^'"?r"'^'°'"^*r 


m 


m 


;')(i4 


Tin:  (ONTKAfTS  0\'  CAlMMKIiS. 


[<  n.   XI. 


1| 


ii 


it 


lit 


» 
^ 


|>iiiicip:il.  V.i\\  iHidilionnl  stipiilalion-  iiiiuic  Ip.dic  coiircct- 
iiiiT  •■:ii  ricr  willi  tiic  firsi  can  li;'.\cn()  cfTocl  ii|k)1!  ihc  .>-lii|;K;/''' 
vj  I'll.  117/^//  IJ.rc<i>(li)iix  i  II  ( 'out  riti-l  Willi  /•'irx/  ( '(trrii-r 
u'o  iKil  Eiiin-i'to  (' oiiiK'cli iKj  ('(fn'icr. — To  none  ol'  ihc  ex- 
ceptions coiitaincu  ill  llie  coiilracl  lu-tweeu  llie  lir.--l  cari'ier 
uiul  (lie  siiippcr  wliicli  are  iiitciuled  solely  for  lli(>  proloetion 
of  I  he  former  luf-  the  ('oiiiiectinii'  earrier  any  claiin.''  ^^'ill■ll 
(he  carrier  has  simply  coiitrach'd  lo  IrjMisport  over  his  own 
line  and  tluMi  deliver  lo  anolher,  llie  latter  is  not  eiititK'(!  l(; 
the  heiu'tit  of  (he  lirsl  contract,  nor  has  the  iir-l  (••(■•  any 
au(hori(y  (o  ^•ll(er  in(o  a  s[)ecial  cond'act  on  hehalf  of  (iie 
owner  with  (he  coniiec(in<2:  carrier  limit iiiii'  iiis  conimon  law 
lial)ili(y.'"'  If  a  hill  of  ladiiii;'  specities  certain  railroads  over 
which  jroods  are  to  he  earriecl  and  the  ;:(iods  are  sent  a  ]»ait 
of  the  way  Iw  a  road  not  thus  mentioned,  siu-h  road  will  not 
he  entitled  (o  its  exceptions.'''  Followinii"  the  Aincricaii 
doctrine  as  (o  notices,'''  a  common  carrier  can  not,  \>\  a  gen- 
eral notice  put  up  in  his  oHice  or  distrihuted  in  hand-liiUs, 
exonerate  himself  from  his  lepil  duty  ami  lialiillly  for  prop- 
erty which  is  delivered  lo  him  for  Iranspoi-tadon.  or  li.\  the 
amount  heyond  wliicli  lu'will  not  l)e  held  respoiisihle  in  case 
of  injury  or  loss  :  alihouiih  such  propei'ty  is  dciivercd  to  hin; 
hy  anotiiei'  carrier,  (o  whom  (he  notice  has  heen  made  kiiov,  n, 
and  who  I'oceived  (he  same  from  (he  owner  under  an  ai;r<  e- 
meiit  (o  carry  i(  over  his  own  line,  and  (hen  a>  iiLicn!  of  the 
eonsiirnor,  to  send  it  forwaril  hy  a  carrier.'''  Vi'iiere  uiiod  ^ 
arc  8hii)ped  on  a  throu:^h  line  under  a  contract  with  (he  lir>I 
company,  and  (hey  are  lost  on  a  second  and  conneclii!;:  line, 

:"  l,:mi!i  v.  ('Miii'ii'ii  \c.  !;.  Co..  !'i  .\.  V.  -271  (  IS?!  ,. 

•"''  Haiicrcl'l  v.  >[>'rcli;iiil>  I  >is|i;iifli  'i'l'iiiis.  { 'o..  (7  luwji.  •J(!2  ''Is77). 

••'■•' l$:il)c(.ck  v.  I,alv<' Sii...-.'  \r.  \{.  Co..  I.)  \.  V.  Ilil  (!s:j,:  .\i:ir;iii  v. 
Anu-riciiii  E\.  ('>•..  l!i  \\'i«;.  :i;!(l  (ISd.');:  (':miilcu  i^c.  \{.  Cm.  \.  I'mi-mIi, 
fit  Til.  .-SI.  SI  (ISC,:)):  M.-rdianH  l)i-|iat<'li  'I'raii-.  Cm.  \ .  I^.li(•^<.  so  111.  .17;i 
(IS7.")).  Jim  sec  F.aiiiliv.Camil.'iiiV-'.  It.  ('-...  IC  \.  Y.  ■J7I  (1S71>:  Hiiikicy 
V.  New  York  Cent.   U.  Co..  :; '!'.  iV:  C.  jsl   (1S7I,. 

•"■"  Mcrcliaiits  Disiiaii'ii  'l'raii~.  ( 'i>.  v.  linllc^.  su  11!.  I7;i  ( ls7.">). 

•"  Aiitr  Cap.  l\  . 

•■«.hi(lsnn  V.  W'isicni  I!.  ('<>.  C  AUi-n.  IS,-)  ( ISC.Ii) :  Mii'ir:.uai;  Cciii.  Jv. 
<'o.  v.  Half,  C.  .>[i<'li.2i:i  ils.".!i,). 


'•OlilH'ct- 

(  'iirriir 


til 


(■  ex- 


cari'.M'i' 


liolcclio 


II 


^^■ 


(I'll 


111-  own 

Mill. '(I   Ic 

;niv 

of   lilr 

nioii    |;i\\ 

>;i(ls  over 

111  ;i  \n\v\ 

will  ii(i{ 


Viiicr 


i'';!n 
rcii- 


iii<!-lii!  s. 


or  jiroj). 
'!•  li.\  llic 
c  in  ca.si' 


I  to  I 


iiii 


Know  II, 


111  .•ii^rci'- 
l!    of  liir 
re  jjfoofls 
tlic  lii'.sj 
iiiu'  liiif. 


■^77  >. 
\i:ir;iii   V. 

^'>  III.  (7;i 


li 


iiikK 


y 


<'<'ii(.  j{ 


(II.    M, 


CONMU  Tl.\(i  CAIMMKitS. 


!(!;') 


i(.'  rcccivnm-  cohid.miv,  nsIktc  tlic 


the  coiitnict  of  tli.'  coniiiiuiy  rrcvi'.  inu"  <  lie  .L'ninl  ■;  \\',]\  not  !.•(• 
niodiiied  In-  iiny  rules  iind  I'cHiil.itioiis  of  the  srcoiid  coiii- 
|):iii_v,  tlioiii>li  such  rules  imiy  Imvc  heeii  puldi'/l  v  poslcd 
in  (he  s'.iilioii  house  of  tl 
sliipjx'r  li:i<l  often  heeii.'' 

In  two  New  York  ejises  the  topic  of  this  section  is  con- 
si:ier;'(|  ;it  lenu-th.  In  IhiUrnvk  r.  Lake  Sin, n'  ii iid  Mic// ii/tiii 
tSiHi/.hcni  Ifdilini;/  ( '>)ii>/)iiiii/,^"  the  plnintii'f  shii)[)ed  tifty- 
two  iinrrels  of  [)etrohMini  iit  Oil  City,  in  the  Slate  of  i''.Min- 
syivaniii,  hy  the  Atlantic  and  (Jreat  Western  Hailway  Com- 
pany, under  an  a<i;reeineiit  of  which  the  foliowiiii:-  is  a  copy  : 
"  l\ec(Mved  from  BahcocU  for  shipment  hy  the  Atlantic 
1  (ireat  West(M-n  iiailway  Company,  the  following:  [)rop- 
'ity  ill  LVood  ordei',  exceiit    as  noted,  marked  and  consigned 


aiii 


as  loiiows 


Mar 


.1.  W.O.  .^  ( 


Article 


.")-'  r.hls.  ]{.  Oil  Car  1,.S4S. 


J.  ^\'.   OsBOUNK  c^  Co. 

Albany  \.  V. 

'•  Rate  in  cents  per  100  llis,  $i'').O0  |)er  car. 

*'  Which  this  company  and  coniiectinu"  roads  a,^ri'<"<'  to  deliver 
^vi^h  as  reasonable  dispatch  as  their  general  Itusiness  will 
pi-rmit,  delays  and  accidents  excepted,  but  they  do  not  Jij^roe 
to  transport  the  same  by  any  particular  train,  nor  in  any 
specilied  time."      Subject  to  tlu;  condition  below: 

'*  At  Corry  station  u[)()n  payment  of  frc-iuht  and  charjj^e.s 
thereon."  Then  followed  a  condition  declarinu'  that  tho 
shii)per  assumed  all  risk  of  d;miaiie  for  any  loss  or  damage 
from  any  cause  whatever  ••  while  in  transit  or  at  the  dei)ots 
or  stations  of  any  of  the  companies  whose  lines  of  I'oad  it 
may  be  trans|)orted  over  or  uiion."  It  was  stated  in  the 
agreement  that  this  exenqition  was  conceded  in  consider- 
ation of  the  reduced  rate  at  which  the  oil  was  to  be  carried, 
and  that  when  the  eomi)any  took  the  usual  risk  of  damage 
or  lo.sH,  the  rate.s  were  double  the  amount  charged  in  that 

"  K:iilro!iii  Co.  v.  Pi-.itt.'iJ  Wall.  123  (187G). 
^'■J'.tN'.  Y.41»l  (1872). 


11 

m 


3t;ti 


rilK  CONTKACTS  OF  CAliUIKKS. 


[('II.   XI. 


iiistaiK'c.      It  appeared  in  evidi-nce  that  tlie  eliai\<:('  made  was 
11k    custotnavy  pi'iee  for  transportation  of  freiuiit  from  Oil 
Citv  to  Corry,  wliieli  was  tlie  end  of  tiie  road  of  tiie  earlier. 
At  Corry  the  aW  was  delivered  to  the  Hnffaio  and  I'iUslduj: 
Wailroad  Company,   whieli  carried    it    t»)    Ilroetoii,  where  it 
was  (h'li'.cred  to  the  defeiuhml  company,  in  whose  posse- 
sion the  oil  was  destroyed  hv  tire.     Tlie  dlreetion  and  ad- 
dress were  in  wrilini;  on  a  printed  hill  of  ladiiiii,  as  was  also 
the  reference  to  Corry  station.   The  followinir  condition  was 
printed:   "In  consideration  of  tlie  rednced  rate  ui veil  and 
specitied  aliovo  for  the   transportation   of    peti'oleum,   it  is 
understood  that   the  owner  or  shipper  assumes   all  risk  of 
daiiuiire  from   tire  or  leaUaiic  or  from  any  cause  whatever, 
while  in  transit,  or  at   the  depots  or  stations  of  any  of  the 
companies  Avliose  lines  of  road  it  may  he  transported  upon 
or  over."     It  was  held  that  the  written  jiarts  controlled  the 
printec.  form  ;  that  there  was  only  a  contract  for  earriajjre  of 
the  oil  to  Corry,  and  that  the  exemptions  mentioned  in  the 
[irinted  form  did  not  eiinro  to  the  henetlt  of  the  coimeetinif 
carriers.     Allkn,  J.,  said  :  "  Carriers  who  are  not  named 
ill  !i  contract   for  the  earriaire  of  ijoods,  and  who  are   not 
formal  parties  to  it,  may  under  certain  eircumstanees  have 
the  henetit  of  it.     Such  is  the  case  when  a  contract  is  made^ 
liy  one  of  several   carriers  upon   eomiectinir  lines  or  routes 
far  the  carriage  of  property  over  the  several  routes  for  an 
ajrroe'd    price    by  authority  express   or    implied  of   all    the 
eai'riers.     So,  too,  in  the  absence  of  any  authority   in   ad- 
vanee,  or  any  usa-^e  from  which  an  authority  inijrht  be  in- 
ferred,  a  contraet    by  one  carrier  for   tlie   transportation 
of  goods  over  his  own   and  eoiinectinj;  lines,  adopted  and 
acted  ujioii  by  the  other  carriers,  would  enure  to  the  l)eiictit 
of  all  thus  ratifying  it,  and  performing  service  under  it. 
Hut   ill  such  and  the  like  cases  the  contract  has  resjiect  to 
and  provides  for  the'serviees  of  the  carriers  upon  the  con- 
necting routes.     There  was  no  agreement  here  for  the  car- 
riage  of  the  oil   beyond   Corry,  no  rate   of  freight  agrec^d 
upon  to  any  otlier  point,  and  the  carrier  was  entitled  to  re- 


r"ii.  xi. 


CM.   XI.] 


CONNKCn.NO  CAUUIEUS. 


•M 


)i 


ccivc  tlif  frci<rli1  ciii-iicd,  twcnty-Hvc  dollars  j)cr  cav,  dii  dc- 
livci'V  of  the  oil  at  that  place.  'I'licrc  was  no  coiisidcratioii 
for  an  ajrrccuicnt  by  the  plaintilT  to  relieve  the  carriers  who 
shonkl  thereafter  reecivi'  the  pi-opcM'ty  for  transportatior. 
from  theeoinnion  law  lial)ilitii's,  anil  wo  siieh  auretMncnt  was 
niacU'."  In  ^Eliia  tnxHraitcc  Coinpani/  r.  \\7{(c/f'r,^^  the 
ijoods  were  ship|)e(l  at  Milwaukee  under  a  hill  of  lading-  as 
hipped  in  liood  order,  1)V  A.  J.  Hale,  us  a«i;oii( 


)lloW! 


"  S 


and  forwarder,  for  account  and  risk  of  whom  it  may  con- 
cern, on  hoard  of  the  i)ropelh'r  City  of  New  Yoi'k,  and 
hound  for  Ojrdenshurir,  the  followinsi;  articles,  marked  and 


numl)ere<i  as  pel"  niaruin,  and  whicli  are  to  i)e  delivered  m 
like  irood  order  and  condition.  ['I'lie  leakaiiC  of  oil^.  molas- 
ses and  other  li(juids,  and  the  danircrs  and  accidents  of  navi- 
uation,  tire  and  collision  excepted],  without  delay  unto 
coiisiifiiees  at  ()_<rd<'iisl)iira,  payinji'  frei<rht  and  diarizes."  Jn 
the  niaruin  :  "  H.  tt  W.  Chickeriiig,  Boston,  care  of  (Jeor<rc 
Eddy,  airent,  Oirdciishurir ;"'  also  a  memorandum  of  projt- 
erty  shipped,  "freight  to  lioston,  $1.10  per  hhl."  The 
transportation  company,  the  owner  of  the  projx'ller,  had 
an  arrangement  with  a  railroad  running  eastward  from 
Ogdenshiirg  for  the  transportation  of  freight  from  that 
point,  hy  which  all  freights  jointly  earned  were  to  he  divided 
hetween  them.  The  defendant  Avas  in  jiossession  of  this 
railroad.  At  Ogdenshurg  there  was  a  wan'house  which  was 
used  in  eommon  hy  both  carriers.  The  goods  were  deliver(>d 
in  the  warehouse  hy  the  ])ro[)eller,  and  notice  of  that  fact 
was  given  to  the  defendant,  hut  they  remained  there  for 
eight  days  because  the  defendant  did  not  iiave  ears  i-nough 
to  forward  them  and  the  other  freight  that  had  accumulated 
at  that  point.  At  the  end  of  that  time,  the  goods  were 
destroyed  by  fire.  It  was  held  that  this  was  not  ii  through 
contract,  and  that  the  exceptions  in  the  bill  of  lading  did 
not  enure  to  the  IxMielit  of  the  defendant.  CJhoveu,  ,)., 
said:  "Had  the  transportation  company  contracted  for 
the  carriage  of  the  llour  to  Jioston,  this  ease  would  )>e 
<■  4!i  N.  Y.  cic.  (isru). 


•7X ' 


:^3i^;^55S5 


i)' 


.•iCS 


T!IK  CONTKACTS  OK  CAIMMKIiS. 


[cir.  M. 


•i-ovnuMl  In-  tlir  rn<v  last  citc'd  ;'-'  l.iit  tlial  \va^  iiol  tlu'  c.ii- 
tract.  Il  coiiti-actnl  I'or  the  carriaiic  of  t lir  Hoar  l»»  Oiidciis- 
lnii;u-oiily  :  and  that  llii'saiiu'  sliould  1k>  forwanli'd  l)v  oilier 
i'lii's  to  r.osion  ;  jiiid  that  the  frci^ilit  for  {\w.  I'litirc  (■;irriaii<^ 
should  he  .*1.1()  per  hanvl.  IIciicc  the  case  citiHl  dors  not. 
apply.  ' 

^  .Mii^'hce  V.  ( 'luuitt'ii  &c.  H.  Co..  45  N.  Y.  51 1  ( ls7I). 


i  i 


ClI.   XII.] 


miJUKX  OV  I'lJOOF. 


im) 


CHAPTER  XII. 


TIIK   HI  HDKN  OF  IMiOOF. 


•»  1  ". 

•JKl. 

■>  17 

•J  IS. 

:i.V». 

•j.v_>. 

•-'.Mi. 

:>.■>!. 

ION. 

JSiirdcn  rpon  Ciifi'irr  to  Kx|)laiii  Loss. 

Ami  to  Slmw  IScstriclivi' t'oiilract. 

IJiifili'ii  (111  ('airier  to  Sliow  tliat  Loss  is  Witliiii  the  Kxi'Pi)tioiis 

UiiimIcm  of  I'ripof  as  to  Nci;ii<;-(Mi('('  — 'I'lic  Aiiicricaii  Doctrine. 

Hiirtlcn  of  I'roof  as  to  \c<;]ij;(Miff  —  ('outran-  N'icw. 

Biinlcii  of  I'roof  ;i-  to  Xi'LTJijiciu'c  —  The  Jiiilc  in  Aialjania. 

Coiiirary  ( 'ascs  I  )i-iiiii;iiis]i('(l. 

Wlicrc  ( 'ari-icr  LiaMc  in  Special  Cases. 

^^'ilc^e  Lxccplioii-  arc  t'oiulitioiial. 

I'leadinj''. 


§  24.").  JJiirdf'it  Upon  Cai'vlci'  to  Explain  Lo,hs. — "When 
iroocls  ill  the  cu.stodv  of  :i  coniiiioii  ctirrier  are  lost  or  diuu- 
iiged,  tlu'  i)re.suni[)tion  of  liiw  is  thtit  it  Wiis  ot'ctisioned 
hy  his  default,  iuid  tlu^  burden  is  ui)()ii  him  to  prove  that  it 
iirosc  from  ti  ciiusc  for  which  he  was  not  responsi])le.'  Simi- 
larly, in  the  ctirriaoc  of  passenircrs,  the  carrier  beiiii?  under 
a  contrjiet  implied  l>y  law  to  provide  safe  mciins  of  trans- 
l)ortiition,  the  ha[)i)ening  of  an  accident  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  iie<rlio'ence  on  his  part.  In  the  letiding  case  of 
C/u'is/ic  V.  6r/vV/_r/.s',-' the  action  was  iigainst  theproi)rietor  of  a 
stage  coiich  for  injury  to  a  passenger,  and  the  i)liiintiff's 


'Nelson  V.  Woodruff.  1  Black,  l.")!!  (ISdl);  Hunt  v.  Tlie  Cleveland,  G 
McLean.  7(i  (Ls.-):<) ;  Bearse  v.  ]{oites.  1  Spra.i,nie,  UlU  (1850);  Kerr  v.  The 
Xorinaii.  1  N'ewh.  ."»-J.*>  (18."),"));  and  see  vwi^va  puxt.  §  248. 

■■2  Viin\\).  71t  (180!)). 
21 


:< 


■«' 


V 


1.  ^ 

k  "I 


*  1  ■;■■ 


'3': 

•  Mi  • 


370 


THE  CONTIIACTS  OK  fAKlMKHS. 


ICU.  XM. 


ovidoiu'c  showed  that  the  injury  was  caused  l)_v  the  l)reakiiii:- 
of  the  axh'-tree  of  the  coacli,  upon  the  to|)  of  which  he 
was  seated.  Lord  Manskikm)  said:  " 'I'he  phiinliff  has 
ina(h'  a  ))vi))i<i  fdiic  case  hy  provintr  his  iioiiiiz-  on  the  coai-ii, 
the  accich'iit  and  the  daniauc'  lie  has  sutTered.  It  now  lies 
on  the  other  side  to  show  that  the  coach  was  as  ^ood  a  coach 
as  couhl  l)e  made,  and  that  the  (h'iver  was  as  skilful  a  (hivcr 
as  could  anywhere  he  found.  What  othcu"  evidence  can  llie 
plaintiff  iiive?  The  passenj^'ers  were  prol)al)ly  all  sailors 
like  himself,  and  how  tlo  they  know  whethei-  the  coach  was 
well  huilt  or  whether  the  coachman  drove  skilfully?  in 
many  other  cases  of  this  soi-1  it  must  he  e(|ually  impossjhle 
for  the  plaintiff  to  nive  the  evidence  re(|uired.  Hut  when 
the  hreakinir  down  or  overt urniui:'  of  ii  coach  is  proved,  ncji- 
lijxonce  on  the  part  of  the  owner  is  implied.  He  has  always 
the  means  to  rehut  this  presumption,  if  it  he  unfounded, 
and  it  is  now  incUmhent  on  tlu'  defendant  to  make  out  that 
the  damaire  in  this  case  arose  from  what  th«'  law  considers  a 
mere  accitlent."  The  principle  of  this  decision  is  well  es- 
tahlished  both  in  P^iuland  and  America.' 

•■'St'cCiiriMic  V.  l.nnddii  iS:('.  H.Cn..  ."><^.  H.  717  (ISII) ;  Skinner  v.  l.nndnu 
&.V.  li.  Co..  2  K.  I.,  it  K.  ;{(i(l.  .S-.  /■.  :.  Kxrh.  7N7  (ls:)(l) ;  IJnyct' v.  ( 'alifurnia 
Sta<;«'  ("<)..  2.")  C'jil.  K)!)  (ISCJ);  'I'raiisiM.riMtion  Co.  v.  Downer.  11  Wall. 
120  (ISVO);  Farish  v.  Kei<,'le.  11  (Jiatl.  (!'.I7  (isnt);  Hrelmi  v.  (ireat  West- 
ern K.  Co.,  :{4  Harh.  -J.V!  (ISdl):  MeKiniiey  v.  Neil,  1  McLean,  ."iio 
(is:{!»):  Stoeklon  v.  Frey.  J  (;ill.  lOii  (Ink;):  Sioke,-  v.  Salionsiali.  l;{ 
IVt.  ISl  (ls;V.)):  I.y«(o  v.  NVwlioid.  !>  Kxeii.  ;i(»2  (is.Vtj:  (urlls  v.  Ko- 
cliester  ite.  \\.  Co..  IS  X.  Y.  'M  (IS.V.l).  Afler  referrinj;-  lo  the  lanj,'na<iv 
of  Lord  Manstield  in  Christie  v.  Cri^i'jjs,  Mr.  Parsons,  in  liis  vahialile 
work  on  Contraets.  vol.  "2.  !•.  221.  says:  ••Some  (|nestioii  Imwever  may 
exist  on  this  point.  We  slioiild  exiness  onr  ow n  view  of  tlie  law  tliiis. 
The  ]ilainliff  must  not  merel.\' prove  tliat  he  lias  snslaineil  injury;  l>iit 
must  ;^o  so  iniieli  fmtlier  as  to.-liow  lliat  he  suffered  from  sueli  aeeidenl.  or 
from  such  otlier  eatise  as  may  with  reason.-ible  ])rohal)ilily  lie  altriliuti'd  lo 
the  neixliy;enee  of  ilie  defendant,  'i'hus  far  the  inms  \<  nw  liie  plainiiff. 
l?nt  then  it  sliifts.  and  the  ilefendant  mu.-t  prove  an  atisenee  of  m'i;li- 
fToneo  or  of  default  on  his  part.  And  if  the  plaintiff  has  made  out  his 
ptinni  facii'  ea>e.  and  the  evidence  offered  in  defense  leaves  it  micert.ain 
whether  there  was  nej^lijijenee  or  not.  the  plaintiff  must  prevail."  This 
does  not  seem  to  he  (piite  clear.  The  autlior  says  that  if  it  tippoars  from 
all  the  evidence  offered  both  hy  j)iaintiff  and  dcfoudHUt  tnal  it  is  doulit- 


II.   XII. 

icll  he 
iff  has 
cojicli. 
»\V  lies 
coacli 
(li'ivcr 

Mil   lll(' 

sailors 
1 1  was 
'  In 
ssil»|(' 

I  wlicii 

(I,  IH'!^-- 

al\va\  s 
iiiidcd, 
lit  that 
i(h'rs  a 

cs- 


cir.  X 


II.] 


lU  KDK.V  OI'  I'KOOF 


371 


§  21(!.  Ami  to  Shorn  J/fsfrirfirr  Coiifnicf. — Upon  the 
carrier  who  allcucs  it  and  who  seeks  to  avoid  iial»ilitv  throiiiih 
its  proxisions,  rests  the  ltiir<ieii  of  proof  of  a  eoiitrait  iiin- 
itin<r  his  eoiiinioii  law  respoiisil)ilit y.'  H  has  been  hiid  down 
in  Illinois  as  the  ride  of  that  State  thiit  as  a  i)arlv  aeecpj inn- 
receipts  for  his  jioods  does  not  in  many  cases  coniprehend 
tiieir  true  import,  the  most  satisfactory  evideiu'e  must  I)e 
furnished  hy  tlu'  carriei-  that  their  terms  were  understood 
and  assented  to  liy  him.''  This  I'ule  will  eomineiid  itself 
as  one  eminently  proper  in  this  class  of  cases,  for  all  the 
reasons  against  the  relaxation  of  the  coi.imon  law  rule  of 
liability  which  have  been  alri'ady  slated  in  former  parts  of 
this  treatise,  support  the  princiiile  that  proof  of  a  contract 
in  limitation  of  liability  must  Ik-  clear.  It  is  likewise  in- 
cumbent on  the  carrier  to  show  that  a  receiiit  eonta'ninii' 
coiulitioiis  of  exem[)tion  Mas  jriven  under  circumstance^  in- 
dicatiiiir  fairness  and  uooti  faith.''  liut  further  than  this  lie 
is  not  re(iuired  to  iro.  In  Ada  ins  ^.I'press  CUmipant/  v. 
(ri(f/irif,'  the  jury  were  instructed  that  they  could  not  tind 

fill  wlii'llHTtlit'  injury  C(iini)l:iiii('(l  of  wiis  llic  \vm\U  of  Ihc  iie^ligciK  "  of 
till'  ciirricr,  llicn  the  nlaiiiliff  must  lucvaii.  ••  fxt rauidiiiaiy  care  iK'ini^' 
(i(Miiaii(l('(l  of  tin"  carrier  and  only  onliiiaiy  care  of  liic  |iassi'n<;iT."  Bin 
if  till'  plaintiff  slioiild  |)rovc  the  cvciit  liy  wliich  ihc  injury  was  caiii^L'd, 
and  slioiild  stop  tiicrc.  it  would  appear  to  iiv  doiilitful  wlictiier  tlic  injury 
should  lie  ascrilx'd  to  lln-  iiciflii^encc  of  lln  cari'ii'r  or  not.  siiicc  there 
would  !)('  no  evidence  on  that  point.  It  wou'd  therefore  seem  that  the 
lilainliff  ou<j:1iI  to  prevail  without  .icoiui;  any  inrlher.  The  plaintiff's  ev- 
idence would  lie  all  the  evi<leneein  the  ea<e.  nnle.-s  the  defendant  should 
think  proper  to  inirodiiee  furtlier  tesiimony.  and  as  the  evidence  woiilti 
leave  the  matter  doiihtfiil  on  the  whole  case  :!s  thus  pre.-ented,  the  plaint- 
iff siioi'.ld  he  allowed  to  prevail,  even  aeeordin,:.'  to  the  >lateinent  of  the 
rule  liy  Mr.  Parsons,  for  we  can  not  understand  him  as  saying  tliat  the 
reasons  for  a  decision  should  not  he  drawn  from  all  the  evidence  intro- 
duced, whether  it  come  from  the  side  of  the  iilainlil'f  alone  or  from  both 
parties. 

MVe.-tern  Trans.  Co.  v.  Xewhall.-Jt  111. -KiO  (iSiiU) :  (iaines  v.  L'nioii 
Trans.  Co..  -JS  Ohio  St.  tlS  (lS7('i) ;  and  see  eases  post.  §  248. 

•'-JJoskowitz  V.  Adams  K\.  Co..  .')  Cent.  L.  J.  ."iS  (1S77). 

«  Adams  Kx.  Co.  v.  Guthrie.  !l  Hush.  78  (1S72);  Somhern  lOx.  Co.  v. 
Unpihart.  Tfl  (Ja.  Hi  (1871);  Louisville  c^ic.  K.  Co.  v.  Iledjjer,  !>  Bush. 
CI.")  (187:5). 

-'J  Bush.  78  (1872). 


/./ 


^'>.\ 


«S«,«T.j!»-gi5f!»!M^5:.fli(ir.i!^^^ 


I 


a 


i 


\^ 


372 


TIIK  CONI'ltAC  IS  or  CAlililKlIS. 


[C'll.    XII. 


that  (lie  s|ii'(i;il  ('()iilr;icl  relied  upon  hv  the  (h'l'eiHhml  to 
limit  its  liiiliilily  had  l>eeii  Jieeepted,  unle>s  tin  y  hclievcd 
that  the  phiisit iff  or  hi.-.  a_ueiits  had  read  tlic  receipt  or  that 
some  one  oi"  iheiti  fidly  uiHh-rstood  and  aji'i'eed  to  its  (eiins, 
and  that  the  otnis  was  on  the  (hd'emlant.  'I'his  was  hehl  to 
he  error,  the  Supreme  ( 'ourl  sjiyinu':  "In  oui- opinion  it  is 
only  neei's>ary  that  tlie  earriei- shall  satisfactorily  ])rove  that 
a  si)eci;.d  contract  was  made  under  circumstance.-  indicatinji' 
fairness  and  jiood  faith,  and  that  it  is  then  incnmhent  upon 
tile  shipper  to  .show  that  the  conti'act  ouu'ht  not  for  the  I'ea- 
sons  above  iiKiieated  [duress,  imposture  or  delusion]  to  he 
enforced  against  him."  I'nder  tho  English  statutes  the 
hurden  of  showin::' t  hat  a  condition  was  "just  and  rea.-ona- 
hlo  '"  is  on  liie  carrier.^ 

§  247.  Burih'ti  1)11  (  '(irrli'i-  fo  Slmir  (hat  Loss  is  Within 
.]:}xi'iiij)ti(>iiH. — And  the  hurden  of  |)roof  is  upon  the  eari'ier 
not  only  to  show  that  a  liniite<l  coiilraei  has  heeii  made  hut 
also  that  the  loss  in(|uestion  aiose  fi-om  a  cause  excepted 
in  this  contract."  And  this  fact  must  he  estahlislied  withrea- 
sonahle  c(>rlainty  and  not  rest  upon  conjecture  or  possihility, 
for  if  upon  the  whole  case  it  is  douhtful  whelh(>r  the  loss 
arose  from  an  excepted  cause  or  tln-ouirh  the  neuliu'cnec  or 
want  of  skill  of  tiu'  carrier,  the  latter  will  have  to  licar  it.'" 

§  24S.  liinulcn  of  Pvoof  as  (o  yci/fi(f('r.r'' —  Thr  Ameri- 
can Jhicti-iiK'. — The  law  of  this  country  heiiig  as  before 
stated  tliat  an  exception  in  the  contract  of  a  eomnioii  carrier 
will  not,  on  j^'rounds  of  [)ul)lic  policy,  be  alloweil  to  include 

•*lVok  V.  Xorlli  Stafforil.-^liiiv  1{.  Co..  10  11.  L.  C'as.  17:!  (l.S():i). 

»Tii.'  riv.'doin.  I..  j{. :!  r.  c.  wx\.  -.n  i..  t.  (N.  s.)  i.vi  dsri) :  Vcmcr 

V.  Swt'it/cr,  ;i2  Til.  St. -JOS  (^l.s:)S):  Hennclt  v.  Iwlyaw.  1  Kia.  Idlt  (ISIT): 
Aldcii  V.  rear.-oii.  :{  (Jray.  '.\\i  (is,*),')) :  and  sec  cases ;)(i.v^  <;  -.MS. 

"'Tilt'  Live  Vaiikci'.  ]  l).'a<Iy.  120  (ISC.S),  'Jlio  currier  can  not  (tis- 
■cliarj^e  himself  by  sliowin;;  that  tlie  navi^^'ution  wa.s  (liliiciill  or  tlaiifjer- 
•oiis.  or  lliat  lie  eiuiiloyed  skilful  and  eoinpelenl  persons  to  control  and 
niaiia;ie  the  lioat ;  he  must  show  tlic  aetnal  manner  of  the  loss.  Mill  v. 
>;iiir};e()n.  28  Mo.  :W;!  (IsVii)).  Although  it  may  l)e  shown  that  tlie  hoal 
of  a  carrier  is  not  seawortliy,  lie  may  still  sliow  that  the  loss  was  not  ot;- 
cisioned  l)y  its  iMis(>awoi'thiness.  l)iit  t)y  one  of  tlie  perils  excepted  in  the 
bill  of  lading.    .Smith  v.  Whitman.  \\\  Mo.  WWl  (ls."iO). 


I.   Ml. 


Mill     to 

licvcd 
r  tliat 

Iciiiis, 
Id   1(> 

II  it  is 
:'  thiit 
•;it  inn- 
upon 
'  rcii- 
to  he 
the 


-ollM- 


\' till  in 
.•iiricr 
!<'  I»iit 
cptcd 
li  rcii- 
)ilitv. 


los.> 


'('  or 


UPl'l- 

'forc 
irrici' 
■ludc 


crnor 
1M7): 


iiiifjcr- 
[il  and 

Hill  V. 

f    llOilt 
lot   ()('- 

ill  till- 


(11.   XII. 


lUKDKN  or   I'KOOl' 


;{ 


his  n(\uIi,L:''iii'('  or  tlif  iiciilijvciici-  oF  Ids  iiuciit'^  and  scrvaiils, 
the  (|Ucsti()ii  cai'ly  arose  wlictiici- where  llic  defciis'  is  that 
the  loss  resiilied  from  an  excepted  ri>k  il  will.hc  siiiHeieiil  tor 
the  t-ai-rier  to  itrin;:- the  case  within  the  exception  to  prove 
dial  it  proccecK'd  from  the  caii^'  therein  iiieii;ioiied,  or 
whether  he  i>  to  l»c  called  upon  to  lio  fnrther  and  to  prove 
that  he  was  i;'iiilty  of  no  nei^'liiiciice  conlril»iitin<;'  to  the  (  x- 
ccpled  loss,  rpon  this  (|iieslion  three  dilTereiit  views  have 
liecii  taken.  The  lir>t  which  is  the  rule  in  I'"iii:'laiid"  and 
which  is  supported  hy  a  iimltiltidc  of  cases  in  this  coiiiitrv, 
answers  t he  (jiK'stion  in  favoi'  of  the  carrier,  and  refiisinn'  to 
prcstiinc  neuliu-encc  where  none  is  shown,  considi'i's  I  he  car- 
rier as  excused  upon  his  showinu"  tlu'.t  the  loss  arose  from  a 
<'ause  for  which  according' to  the  terms  of  his  contract  he 
was  not  to  lie  held  rcsponsilile.  The  htirdi'ii  of  proviiiij,' 
nei:TiL>-ence  thereupon  devc'ves  upon  {\w  ship|)er.  This,  so 
far  as  the  preponderan<-e  of  authoritv  is  conceniod,  mav  he 
well  c;dle(l  ihe  Aiiiericiiii     octrine.'-' 


Oliilc.ft'  V.  r.iiscail.  F..   I!.  1    1'.  (".  •Jlii.  12  .liir.   (\.  S).  C 


L.  .1. 


1'.  c.  i;;;.  i.^)  \v.  k.  -nvi.  \  i  l.  t.  (N.  s.)  s;;}.  i  Mmoiv.  i'.  v.v.  (\.  s.) 

7(1;  .s.  <•..  siili  num.  'I'lic  llcl.'iic.  U.  it  T..  I-J'.!  (ISiiC);  CV.i'cii  v.  Cciicral 
Steam  Xaviualioii  V»..  1..  U.  :!  (".  I'.  1 1.  :i7  I..  .1.  C.  I'.  :{.  K;  W.  IJ.  l:i(). 
17  r..  T.  (\.  S.)  -JK;  (1S(;7):  irirjiani^ou  v.  Sowcll.  2  Siiiilli.  ((^  H.)  20.") 

(is(i:.). 

'-' Allien  V.  I'.'aivcin.  ;!  (Jr.iy.  ;il2  dsri,"));  Anu'rican  Ex.  Co.  v.  Sand-. 
:>.">  I*a.  Si.  11(1  (!si;7):  'I'lic  AiiKiiin'ila  ('..  .">  JJcn.  .".(it  (,lsr2);  Ualii- 
incrc  tSic.  I{.  Cii.  V.  IJrady.  :i2  Md.  WX)  (iSi'.H);  IJa/.in  v.  Sti'ain.-liip  Co.. 
:»  Willi.  .Ir. -J-Jli  (IS.')7):  Mcar-o  V.  I{i)pc>.  1  Spra.iriic.  ;i:{l  ilS,")(i):  Boinclt 
V.  Kilyaw.  1  I"l  i.  KKi  (ls|7):  I5iaii.M- v. 'riic  AlinnntT.  1>!  La.  Ann.  'im 
(lS(i(!):  Caivv  V.  Alkin<.  Il  IJ.-n.  ."iil2  ;ls7;i):  ( 'liul)h  v.  Iirna\id.  2(i  Law 
Kcp.  4:12  (is(il):  (Miirk  v.  Maniwdl.  12  Mow.  272  (IS.-.l):  Clark  v.  St. 
I.iinis  l^:(•.  |{.  (•()..(!!  Mo.  !  Id  (1S77)  ;  ( 'oltim  v.  Cleveland  itc  J{.  Co.,  (;7 
I'a.  Si.  211  (1S7(I):  Dedekani  v.  Vuse. ;!  Mlaleli!".  -t-l  (lS."i:i):  'I'iie  Delhi, 
i  r..'n.  I!!.".  (Is7(n:  Kniise-li  v.  Wade.  ;i  111.  2S.->  (ls|(l):  ivhvards  v. 
I'lie  ( 'aliaw  ba.  1  I  l.a.  Ann.  121  ( lS,")'.i) ;  'I'lie  Kniily  v.  Carney.  5  i\as.  (IJ.") 
(lsi',1):  Tiie  l^ninia  .lolni-nn.  1  Spi-ajiiie.  ,*i27  (ISCd):  [''arnliani  v.  Cam- 
den iVic.  i;.  Co.. 
Ann.  27:>  (Isdii)  :   l-'reneli  v.  Hiit'lalo  A.e.  \t.  Co..  l  Keves.  Ids.  .v.  c  2  Ahh. 


I'a.  Si.  .");!  ("18(17):  I''raidi  v.  Adam<    Kx.  Co..  IS  l.a. 


:<:•  (, 

\\\\i.  Dee.  1!M!  (IS(IS);  Hays  v.  Milier.  77  Pa.  Sr.  2:{S  (1^71):  nm  v, 
Stnr;i-eon.2S  >!o.  ;{2;l  (isr»'i):  Hooper  v.  ItaMihone.  Tan.  Dee.,"dli  (IS.'iS); 
lluhhard  V.  ilanidiai's  K\.  Co..  id  1{. !.  2.">1  (ls72) :  Hiinnewell  v.  'I'alior. 
2    Sjii-.i.nne.    1    (ls:il;:    Hiiii;    v.  'I'lie    Cleveland.  (I  McLean.  7'.1  (ls:i;!): 


if3«™i«wi»»rn-^.T™ir!(ijira»7?w..,.- 


37[ 


TIIK  (ONTItACrs  OK  CAUKIKUS.  [(II.   XII. 


1: 1- 


§   'J\\K     /ii(n/iu    of  l*f()(tj'   OH   tit    \ri/fii/i)irr — ('itiitrtir;/ 

Vli'ir. —  111  (ircciiU'iif  on  Hvidciicr  it  is  siiiil :    "  And  if  llif 

Jitreplaiu'c  of  (he  piod.s  \»ii.s  spfciid,  tlu-  Imrdcn  of  i)ro(>f  is 

Till-  liivinrll)|c,  I  F.nwcll.  ■.'•_>:>  (isils);  .roller  V.  \VmIK«t.  .">  Y<T;r.  I-T 
(.1S27);  Tlic-.liinlMlii  i'ni.ii.  I  T.i-.  I.".  (JS.VJ):  Kiilliiiiiii  v.  V.  S.  Kx.  ('<... 
rt  KiiH.  JO.-)  (ISOri);  Ki-Ili:iiii  V. 'I'hr  l\fiisiii>,'i..ii. 'J  I  l,ii.  Ann.  Kitl  (j.s;--') : 
'I'hc  Ki'oknk.  I  \\\-<.  .VJJ  (  \>W,) ;  Kansas  |':;c.  |{.  (  i,.  v.  |{i\  nold ..  s  K:i-. 
(;-.!;(  (IsVI):  Kiiii;'  v.  Slicjilicrtl.  :<  Sloiy.  :!!!>  (IMl):  KiiU  v.  I'nI-nni.  iM 
!,!i.  Ann.  r.St  (Is7l):  'I'h.-  I.aily  I'ikf.  •_'  \\U-.  Ill  (IsC!!);  I.imili  v.  Can;- 
tlcn  iV:i'.  |{.  ('(...  K;  N.  V.  -JTl  (ISTI):  l.anili  v.  raikniiin.  1  S|iia;:nc.  :U:t 
(ls."i7):  I.awicnrc  v.  Niw  YoikAf.  |{.  Co..  oil  ((.nn.  (ill  (1>  ;  Maj;!!!!! 
V.  Dinsniciic.  C.  .1.  \  .s. -JMl  (1.S7I):  Milflicll  v.  I'.  S.  V.\  Id  Iowa. 

•Jll    (ls77);   'I'll!'    Mcillif    MuIiI.t.  -J   Hi  -.   .•().-.  (Is71):   M.  .   i:\an-. 

II  I$arl).  .')■_> I  (Is.VJ):  New  .It'ix'V  Sicani  \av.  ("n.  v.  MiTrhani-  I'.ank.  H 
How.  :MI(1S|8):  \f\v  Oilcan-;  ln«.  Co.  v.  Xcw  ((rlcans  \c.  \{.  Co..  -JO  l/i. 
Ann.  :i(f2  (ISC.Sj;  'I'nc  Nia;;ara  v.  Corilo.  'Jl  How.  7  {ls.")S);  'riic  Oii'aii 
\Vav(>.  ;i  I5i«-.:tl7  (ls7J;:  'I'lic  ollnis.  :t  Il.ri.  lis  (isf.in;  'i'lc'  (iiil!ani- 
nic.  1  Siwy.  17(1  ( lS7n) ;  Paii.T-nn  v.  Ciydi'.  (;7  I'.i.  Si.  ."lOlt  i  ls71 ) ;  riici' 
V.  fricl.  Kt  l.a.  Ann.  Ii:!  (is.-i.'.);  jiich  v.  I,anil."ri.  TJ  How.  :!I7  (is.-.j): 
Tin-  li'M-kft.  1  Hi—  :;.VI  (IMKM;  Sini!ii  v.  Noilli  Carolina  l{.Co..(il  N. 
C.  'IVt  (l.s7(>):  Snniicrlanil  v.  \V<'-i(un.  1  Swi-niy.  JDU.  |i)  How.  I'r. 
■  ICS  flS7il);  Tlinnias  v.  'I'lir  .Morninn'  Clory.  lit  l.a.  .\nn.  -JliU  (is.'.S): 
'riiinsiioriniioii  Co.  v.  Downi-r.  II  Wall.  121t  (ls7(»);  'I'lirncr  v.  'I'lir  Ulack 
\\anior.  !  .McAll.  isi  (is.V.);  'i'miicy  v.  Wil-on.  7  Y-t;;.  '.HO  (ls:!.">); 
Tysi-n  V.  Mooic.  ."i(i  IJail).  II'J  (ls7(i):  Van  Scliaack  v.  Nortlii'vn  Tians. 
Co..  :n{i-^s.  :!!l|  (ls7:!):  The  Vivid.  I  Urn.  ;!l!t  (ls7(»;.  I'liH.'  -lass  was 
sliippt'd  nndcr  ii  hill  of  l.nlinir  i'Ncin|iiin<;  llaltilily  for  ilaniap'  liy  "lucak- 
aui'."  ^Vll('n  it  arrived  it  was  Inokcn.  Ililil,  thai  tlif  liiirilcn  of  jii'ov- 
in,:j;  nt';;li;;('ni'"  was  on  tlir  sliipinf.  Tin'  I'd'ciif.  s  lien.  Itol  (ls7,")). 
(.'asks  of  will!'  wtTi'  slii|)|it'il  nndiT  a  Ml!  of  ladinj;  with  a  condiiion 
'•  not  liable  for  leakage  or  hreakaiV"'.'"  S'lme  w  ere  inipiy  on  llieirarrival. 
olliers  p.'inially  so.  Proof  of  ilie  inferior  fpialily  of  Hie  easks  liavinj;: 
been  ;;iven.  il  was  held  llial  the  linrden  of  -li(>\\  ini^  neL'liji'eni'e  was  on 
tli'-shipjier.  Six  Hnndred  and'l'hirty  ( 'a^ks.  ]  i  Hladhf.  .")17  (,ls7s>.  Nol- 
wilhslandiiii;' !i  hill  of  ladiii'j;  eonl.iin-  a  provi-ion  Hiat  the  vesel  shall 
not  he  iU'conniahle  "for  leakap'.  Ineakane.  or  rn-i."  ilii'  vessel  is 
iievei'theiess  I'csponsihle  for  ne^ljijcnce  or  w ant  of  skill  orcaic  in  her 
ladiiijU,'.  slorau;e  or  delivei'y  of  ear;;o.  r,ni  -ncli  ne;;li;4eMee,  want  of 
skill  <>!•  ejirc.  inn-1  he  allinnaiively  -hown  hy  ilie  jiaily  iiPe^iin^-  it.  The 
Invilleihl(^  1  I,ow<11.l'2.")  (  ISils;.  WIe're  scver.d  harrel-  of  aearjo  of  pe- 
troleinn  w  're  d.'iivered  eniply.  and  the  l)iit  of  ladiii'j;' provided  that  freiuhl 
should  he  ••  p:'-  idile  on  I'.ieh  and  e'.'ery  harrel  delivei-ed  fidl.  uol  fidl  oi' 
empty."  7/'''/.  iliat  the  hnrden  of  proof  was  n|)on  the  party  see!. inn' to 
ehari'.e  tie'  e.n-.ier  lo  -liow  ilia!  the  le:ilxa;;i'  wasih<'  re^idi  of  neL;lii;en('e. 
Forhev  \.  I)all"ll.'.t  riiila.  ."»!.")  (1S7J;.  Where  jjood- are  sliiiiped  nndri- 
a  conlrael   ')y  Ahi'h  the  •■on.-lguor  as-unies  all  ri'Us  of  the  carria;;*'.  and 


S' 


II.   XII. 


<'II, 


xir.] 


mUDKN  OF  I'KOOr. 


375 


iilniii/ 

if  the 

I'dof  is 


still  on  the  carrier  to  sliow  not   only  that    the   cans*'   of  the 
Idss  was  within    thr  Ifiiiis  of   tlie  i-xccptioii    Imt    also  that 

It  aplii'ius  lliiil  llu'V  wcic  lt)>l  llir<iii;rl,  ,l,.f,.,.|^  j,,  (in- Vi'lilrlcs  in  wlilili 
Ihcy  wci-f  ciinli'il,  tilt' liiinli'ii  111  |ii'iinl'  1- (Ui  the  cMnlcr  to -iluiw  lliiil  llic 
1,).-  \\!i^  Mill  cilllsfd  liy  till' lM';;ll;jclirc  (tf  the  ciilliiT.  Kmiilrc 'rrillis.  Co. 
V.  Wimi>imii  Oil  Ci...  (;;i  I'n.  Si.  Il  (Isc.'.t;.  ••  n  |||<>  .anicr  i»i()vc  ijiiil 
lilt'  Injury  or  loss  Wils  ucc;i, Inlicil  liy  one  of  tliosi'  oci'liricliccs  wllicli  lilt' 
Icriiii'il  ilii- iii'l- of  {'t<n\.  I'liiiui  fmii'  he  (liM'li:ir;;cs  hiinsrlf.  ami  i\i\' imnn 
of  provlii;,'  dial  Ilic  alicp-d  caii.-i' or  a;jt'iicy  would  not  have  prodiiccd 
llic  loss  or  liijiiiy  wltlioiit  his  ii»';,'lij;('n(c  or  di'ffcllvr  nifuiis.  Is  thrown 
ii|ioM  the  plainlil'f."  N'i'w  IJriin^w  Lk  Sicaiii  Nav.  Co.  v. 'I'lcrs,  ■1\  N. 
.1.  {I,a\\).(i77  ils,"i;t).  An  rxpiT<-  >'iiiii|iaiiy  •i'avc  tlif  ('on-l^^nor  on  rc- 
ci'lpl  of  a  paiUa;;!'  of  money  iiotiif  tliat  their  llaliilily  was  "as  forward- 
ers only."  It  was  cairied  hyilieinlo  the  end  of  their  ronle  and  then' 
delivered  to  a  eonneiMlii;;;  larrier.  The  eonsi;' lee  of  the  pa('Uay:e  re- 
fused to  reeelse  it.  and  orileled  it  lo  he  returned  to  (he  eily  wheie  (iist 
leceiM'd  hy  ihe  eNpre-- eoiiipaiiy.  and  on  il»  arrival  there  a  pari  nt  ilie 
money  hail  lieen  ah>lraeied.  The  hurdeii  was  not  upon  the  company  lo 
prove  when,  where,  or  hy  wh"-i'  lie^H;^eiiee  the  paeKa;4e  was  lost. 
.\merir;iii  Kspri'x  Co.  V.  Si'coiid  National  Hank.  (i'.»  I'a.  St.  It'.M  i  |s71 ;. 
••  The  defeiidanl  was  esonoraled  from  all  lialiility  as  earrier  for  a  loss 
«'aus('d  hyllie  deslruetioii  of  tiie  cotloii  by  lire,  hy  an  express  provislcii  uf 
the  eonlrai't  in  puisuaiiee  of  whieh  it  transjiorted  tlie  eotlon.  Jielieved 
of  this  respon>ihility.  il  was  liahle  only  in  ea-e  it  was  so  destrovcd  as 
liuilee  for  hire;  and  il  is  imdispnted  that  sneh  a  bailee  is  liable  for  the 
loss  of  the  property  only  in  ea>es  wiiere  the  loss  is  the  result  of  his  ne<;li- 
•jenee.  The  i|uestion  is  whether  in  rase  of  loss  by  a  bailee  for  hire,  the 
bailorein  reeover  Upon  >iinple  proof  of  loss,  unless  the  bailee  shall  iirovo 
thai  he  was  freti  from  all  iie;;li;;enee  contributin';;  to  sneh  loss,  or  whether 
the  bailor  must  yo  fiirlher  and  prove  that  the  loss  was  caused  by  the 
lieirliiicnce  of  tlie  bailee.  I  believe  this  to  be  a  fair  slateinellt  of  the 
(luesiiou  between  the  parlies  to  ibe  present  action,  and  yet  so  stated  no 
oin'will  hardly  insi-.|  that  Ihe  bailor  can  recover  without  alUrmatively 
IMiivin;:;  that  tlie  loss  was  caused  by  the  nej;:lij;enee  of  the  bailee."  Lamb 
V.Camden  \c.  li.  Co..  Ki  \.  Y.  271  (lS71j.  The  rule  in  Missouri  is 
thus  stated:  In  a  suli  a<;aiust  a  cariii'r  the  plaintiff  is  only  boiiiid  in  the 
lirst  iiistaiice  to  prove  <lelivery  and  loss;  if  defendant  pleads  an  exemi)- 
tion  under  the  conlracl.  the  burden  is  on  him  lo  pro\e  tliat  the  loss  was 
occasioned  by  the  causes  excepied;  but  he  is  not  required  to  jjo  further 
and  prove  that  he  was;xnilly  <if  no  iie;irijiencc.  I'roof  of  that  fact  will 
rest  on  Ihe  iilaintiff;  and  siich  proof  is  made  out  by  showing  tliat  Ihe 
injui'y  mijjht  have  been  avoided  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  skill  and 
attention  on  the  part  of  the  carrier.  Head  v.  .St.  Louis  iV:c.  1{.  Co..  (10 
.Mo.  III!)  (IS7.")).  Hut  see  Keichniu  v.  AnK'rican  &.r.  Kxiiress  Co..  hi  Mo. 
;i!)()  (lS7:t):  Lupe  v.  Atlantic\-c.  |{.  Co..  I!  Mo.  (App.)  77  (LS7(!).  What 
is  considered  as  evidence  of  ne;:;li«;ciice  has  b(!en  shown  in  a  former 
(.'liapter.     Sd'  hhU'.  Cap.  Vl.  §  i;iS. 


;i7G 


TIIK  CONTI5ACTS  OV  ("AIMIIKIJS. 


[CM, 


XII. 


'«'* 


m 


ii '. 


m 


there  was  on  liis  part  no  nejilijrence  or  want  of  due  care."  '' 
This  rule  has  the  support  of  a  f<'w  aulhorities.^  The  rea- 
sons upon  which  it  is  fomuhMl  are  presented  l»y  Limi'KIN, 
J.,  in  :i(Jeorii-ia  ease,''  whei'cin  he  says:  '' ^^'hat  shipper 
wheu  he  demands  his  cotton  at  the  pl.ace  of  (h'iivery  is  sai- 
isfied  to  he  toUl  that  it  was  I)urnt  ?  He  wants  to  know  iiow 
it  was  burnt  ;  and  the  cari'ier  is  hound  to  jrive  the  cNpIana- 
tion,  for  he  and  liis  servants  ah)ne  can  <h)  it.  He  is  only 
excus,-(;  if  i\]v  Hre  was  unavoidalile  and  he  shouhl  pi'ove 
that  il  was  so.  It  is,  I  repeat,  in  his  |«ower  to  siiow  the 
facts,  and  it  shouhl  for  that  I'eason  l)e  made  his  duly  to  <lo 
so.  Ship|)ers  are  ohliucd  to  liaist  t(»  caiM-iers.  In  tin-  >er- 
vants  and  employees  of  the  carrier  the  shipper  >\ill  always 
find  reluctant  witnesses,  A','hy  force  the  owner  of  produce 
to  make  them  his  witnesses  and  thus  indorse  their  credihility  ? 
In  Tennes.-ee  the  employees  and  servants  of  i-ailroads  are 
not  allowed  to  he  witnesses  in  hehalf  of  the'r  employers. 
Why  compel  plaintiffs  to  make  them  their  witnesses  and 
hind  theih  I>y  the  truth  of  their  testimony?  The  more  neu- 
liirent  they  liave  heeii  in  the  discharii-e  of  their  duty,  the 
more  ditlicult  il  will  i)e  to  extort  ihe  truth  from  ihem. 
Could  they  he  expected  to  swear  thai  tlie  car«ro  was  hurnt 
1)}' their  neirliii'ence?  To  place  the  anus  upon  the  plaintiff 
would  l)e  to  deny  him  all  redri'ss,  I  admit  the  iieiu-ral  lule 
that  he  who  allcires  must  prove.  Hut  it  is  e(pially  well 
estahlished  that  the  burden  of  proof  shoidd  he  upon  him 
who  hest  knows  what  the  facts  are.  If  il  he  said  that  the 
agents  and  servants  may  he  resorted  to  I)y  the  shippei-  as 

'••12  (Jn'ciilf.  oil  i-:v..  §  2r.t. 

'M'.i\i(ls(iii  V.  (;r:ili:im.  -J  (Jliio  Si.  l:tl  n>!">;<):  <;r:ili;mi  v.  I>;isis.  I 
Oliin  St.  :i(!2  (isr.l):  liiin-d  Stairs  Kxprc^s  ('«..  v.  IJaclimaii.  2  (in.  2:>1 
(1872).  adiniit'd  2S  Oliio  SI.  \\\  (is;:.):  Kiif  |{.C...  v.  I.urkwdixl.  2S 
Oliio  St.  ;t.")S  (|S7(i) :  (Jaiiios  v.  I'liion  'rraiispi  trial  inn  Co..  Id.  lis  (ls7(;i ; 
Whitcsidcs  V.  Hiisscll.  s  \\.  A  S.  M  (IS4t):  llavs  v.  Kcmi.'dv.  II  I'a.  St. 
37S  flS(il);  riiinii  Kxpri'ss  Co.  v.  (iraliain.  2i!  Ohio  St.  .V.i.")  (JS7r(): 
Ui'rry  v.  Cooper.  2S  (Ja.  :>V.\  f IS.V.i) ;  Swindler  v.  Iliiiianl.  2  Uicli.  (S. 
C.)  21<i  (l.sii;):  Hakcr  v.  Hnnsi.ii.  '.I  KMi-li.  (S.  C.)  2(1!  (Isr.C):  Caineron 
V.  Wicli.  4  SIroldi.  ICS  (IS.-.O).  s.  <■..  ,")  IJicli.  (S.  C.)  :i.")2  (1S.-.2) :  SonllHTU 
Express  Co.  V.  N'ewliy.  :{ii  (la.  ii;{.")  (lS(i7). 

'•■'  Herry  v.  Cooper.  2s  (J;,.  ."(i;{  ( is.V.i). 


(11.   XII. 


en.  XII. 


lU'KDKN"  OF  I'ltOOK 


'Ml 


'he   I'ca- 

IMI'MN, 

sliippcr 

\  is  s;il- 
<)\V  liow 

is  oiilv 

I   pi'ovc 

low   llic 

_v  t(»   do 

the   ><-i'- 

1    :il\\:i\- 
prodiicc 

(lil)ililv? 

oads  arc 

plovers. 

sscs  and 

iity,  Ihc 

III     tilClll. 

as  liiirni 
pliiiiiliff 
cral  rule 
iill.v  well 
|)oii  liini 
that  the 
ippcr  as 

Dfivis.  ( 
J  ('ill.  2.")! 
.wood,  -js 

iNflSrC; 
»l  I'.l.  SI. 
^)  (INT.")): 
I{i(li.  (S. 
(  'aillrl'oii 
Sollllicill 


well  as  the  carrier,  wc  have  only  to  repeat  tliat  tlieir  wishes, 
feelinjis  and  interests  are  all  on  the  side  of  their  employers. 
Let  the  carrier  then  prove  the  loss  and  the  niaiuier  of  the 
loss.  Policy  as  well  as  the  safety  of  all  concerned  de- 
mands the  estahlishnient  of  such  a  rule."  In  an  Alaliania 
case  it  is  said:  "One  result  of  the  introduction  of  steam- 
Itoats  and  railroads  is  that  common  cari'iers  have  to  a  urcat 
extent  taken  exclusive  possession  of  the  pulilic  thorouiih- 
fares  of  th(>  country,  and  have  it  in  their  power  to  impose 
their  own  terms  n|)oii  the  owners  of  uoods  who  indeed  have 
no  choice  hut  to  employ  them,  'i'he  owner  accepts  the  con- 
ditional hill  of  ladiiiu'  l)ecaus(>  he  can  not  well  help  it.  lie 
must  have  his  iroods  carried  and  he  sees  that  the  cai'rierwill 
refuse  to  take  them  unless  the  pi'escrihcd  terms  are  ae- 
cepteil.  The  owner  seldom  accompanies  his  property,  aiul 
in  case  of  loss  or  injury,  howevi'r  uioss  the  neivliiivnce  may 
lie,  is  unal>le  to  i)rove  it  without  relyinir  upon  the  servants 
of  the  carrier  —  the  very  persons  oeiierally  I »y  whose  iieirli- 
o'cncc  (if  there  was  ncu'liirt'iice )  the  iroods  have  been  lost; 
whose  feeliiiiis,  wishes  and  iiiten^  are  all  auainst  the 
owner,  and  who  are  as  a  oLncral  rule  only  too  ready  to  ex- 
cul])ate  themselves  and  their  employer.  Of  the  manner  of 
the  loss  the  owner  is  iicnerally  entirely  i<rnorant,  while  the 
carrier  and  his  servants  may  he  reas(<nal)ly  supposed  to  I)e 
fully  advised  in  reoard  to  it  :  and  that  is  a  sound  rule  which 
devolves  the  onus  on   him  who  best   knows  what  the   facts 


are. 


"  p: 


§  2r)().  /iiinlt'ii  nf  I't'oof  as  (()  Xcf/fii/cnrr —  T/ie  Hub-  In 
AI(ih(H)i(i. —  Hut  111  Alabama  a  still  different  rule  exists.  It 
is  held  in  that  State  that  where  the  carrier  shows  that  the 
hvss  occurred  from  a  cause  for  the  conse(]uences  of  which 
he  is  not  liable  under  his  contract,  tlu'  niins  is  still  on  him  to 
show  the  exercise  of  due  care  and  diliuenee  on  his  part  to 
prevent  the  injury.'"  This  was  ruleil  in  a  ease  where  a  l)ill 
of  ladinjr  contained  an  exi)ress   sti[)ulatioir  that  the  carrier 

'"Slc.'li'  V.  'i'owiiscnil.  :t7  Ala.  217  (IS(ll). 

'■  Sti'cli- V. 'rowiisciid.  :{7  Ala.  lU?  (IS(il);  Sniilli  itc.  Alaltaina  I{.  Co. 
V.  Ilfiilciii.  .'(^  Ala.  CiOCi  (]S7.">). 


378 


THE  CONTUACTS  OF  CAUUIEIJS. 


[ClI.  XII. 


was  not  acroiint!il)U'  for  rust  or  hrt'akiiire.  It  was  lickl  that 
proof  of  injury  to  the  noods  by  hroakajjfe  iiiadc  a  prhtia 
facie  caso  of  iieijjligcut'c  of  Uie  carrier,  and  that  thr  otiux 
was  oil  him  to  show  duo  cure,  unless  tlie  nature  of  the 
fi'oods  f  urnislu'd  evidenee  of  itself  that  tlue  rare  and  viirilanee 
eould  not  have  i)revent<'ti  the  injury.'"*  "It  is  not  strictly 
accurate  to  say,"  said  Wai-kkk,  ,I.,  in  this  case  "  that  the 
onus  is  on  the  currier  to  show  not  only  that  the  cause  of 
loss  was  within  the  exception,  hut  ulso  that  he  exercised 
due  care.  Th(^  correct  view  is  that  the  loss  is  not  hrouy-ht 
within  the  exi-eption,  unless  it  appt'ars  to  ha.e  occurreil 
without  ni'irlijience  on  t!ie  part  of  lh«'  carrier,  and  as  it  is 
for  the  carrier  to  hrinjr  himself  within  the  exc«'plion  he 
must  make  at  least  a  prii-ia  faclf  showinu'  that  the  injury 
was  not  caused  Iiy  his  neiilect."  in  a  later  case  '■'  it  is  said: 
*'  The  law  of  tills  State,  then,  stands  as  follow.--:  The  ship- 
jxr  makes  a  jiriiini  f'dcic  case;  auainst  tiie  carrier  when  he 
shows  the  ii'odds  were  not  delivereil.  This  ca>ls  the  nuns 
on  the  carrier  to  show  that  the  loss  occurred  from  [an  ex- 
cepted cause!,  and  he  must  also  prove  a  jirin/a  Jarii'  euse  of 
diliii'ence  on  iiis  part.  This,  of  course,  implies  a  river- 
worthy  vessel,  pro])erly  furnished  and  appointed,  competi'nt 
and  sulHciciit  olHcers  and  crew,  and  care  and  viirilane-,  to 
prev<'nt  damper  and  to  avei-t  it  when  impendinu".  Any  dt  *i- 
cieiicy  in  the  skill  or  wateiifulness  of  the  otHeers  or  crew  m 
the  matter  of  their  special  function:  in  the  apparatus  to 
extini:uish  tire,  etc.,  would  fall  sh(»rt  of  proviii<r  a  jtritiKi 
fdcic  case  of  dili;j;-en('t'.  Beyond  these  two  shifting"  stajics 
our  decisions  have  declared  no  rule  in  the  matter  of  the 
Iturdeit  of  i)roof.  The  opinion  in  Slolr  r.  'I'lurnsiiid  was 
tielivered  l»y  an  aide  and  piaident  judp',  and  we  adhere  to 
it,  helievin^jT  the  princii)le  to  l»e  sound.""  Tliis  rule  is  sus- 
tained in  all  the  other  cases  in  this  State.-""  It  :ind  the  ride 
as  stated  l»v  .Mr.  (ii'('eiileaf  are  certaiulv  founded  ui)oii  rea- 


"*  Stfi'li'  V.  'rown-ciiil.  I  Al;i.  Scl.  <  ';i<,  -JOl.  It?  Al:i.  -Ji;  (ISdl). 
•'•'(Jrcy  v.  Multilc  Tnu'.i'  Co..  .V>  AIm.  ;{s7  (1S7{!). 

■-■"  SiMilli  Ac.  Aliil)aiii:i  1{.  Cu.  V.  Ilciilt-iu.  Wl  Alit.  (lOi*   (is;.",);  .Muliijc 
»lv:c.  K.  ('...  V.  .I;iil)i>c.  It  Al:i.  lUl  (1S70). 


Kir.  XII. 


CII.  XII. J 


lUUDKN  or  PROOF 


379 


soil  iiiul  public  l)()li('y,  but  they  luck,  as  has  boon  soon,  the 
suijport  of  authority."'" 

§  2.')1.  CUnttranj  Cases  JJif<(iiit/uis/t<^(I.  —  Acjnkw,  J.,  in 
J'afferson  v.  Vh/dc^-^  clistinjruislics  the  cases  wherein  it  is 
held  that  the  exception  b<'iii<i-  "the  danu-ers  of  the  river,"  th(! 
carrier  must  prove  not  only  the  manner  of  the  loss  but  also 
that  care  had  been  used  to  avoid  it,  from  the  case  at  bar 
where  the  exemption  was  from  loss  by  tire.  "Without 
proof  of  the  circumstances,"  he  says,  "it  is  iniijossible  to  say 
whether  the  loss  arose  from  a  danu'er  of  naviuation.  Such 
a  peril  can  only  be  known  from  its  facts.  *  *  *  \  pci-i) 
of  naviiiiition  is  a  thiiiu'  havinu"  no  dcHnite  fact  to  rest  upon 


1S(     1 


Ml  the  writm<;',  I)ut  must  he  niiide  to  a|)pcar  m  the  very 


fact^ 


of  the  loss.  Hut  not  so  as  to  a  loss  by  tire  which  is  a  spe- 
<ilic  thin;jf  and  determines  at  once  the  character  of  the  loss." 
So  in  the  earlier  case  of  Ilniii))lir<'i/s  r.  JiWd.-'^  Kkn.nkdy, 
.1.,  states  the  principle  thus  :  "  The  strikiii;;-  of  a  boat  upon 
iIm'  stone  or  rock  in  the  canal  may  or  may  not  fall  within 
the  exception.  \\'lu'ther  it  would  or  not  must  always  de- 
pend upon  the  particular  circumstances  atteiidiUii'  it,  either 
iz'oinir  to  show  that  it  happened  in  conse(|nence  of  some  fault 
on  the  part  of  the  master  oi'  those  who  were  intrusted  with 
the  tnanaii'ement  of  the  boat,  or  that  it  occurred  without 
any  default  in  them.  In  this  latter  case  the  los.>  occasioned 
by  the  sinkinu"  of  the  boat  against  the  stone  would  seem  to 
<'oine  fairly  within  the  exception  :  but  in  the  former  it  would 
be  clearly  charircable  to  the  master  or  owner  of  the  l)oat. 
For  instance,  if  the  slone  from  its  position  may  be  readily 
seen  and  avoided  by  tho^e  liavini:'  the  conduct  of  the  boat  ; 
or  althoiiLlh  not  visible  yet  if  its  situation  be  liciierally 
known,  the  loss  ouiiht  to  be  imputed  to  the  fault  of  the 
«!iptain  or  those  havin;.''  the  direction  of  the  I)oat.  Hut  if 
on  the  other  hand  the  cinumstance  of  the  stone  bein_i>:  in 
the  canal  was  not  uenerallv  known  and  unknown  to  the  party 


'  ■'  n 


■-'  Antr.  ;;  -ns. 

--'c:  l*:i.  SI.  :.ni>  ( IS7I ). 

-1(1  wiiiirt.  i:;:.  (isii,. 


380 


TIIK  CONTHACTS  OF  CAKlilKKS. 


[C. 


I.   XI!. 


W 


hiivinu'  the  coiuiiiiiiid  of  tlic  hoat,  niid  was  invisihlc  lo  llu> 
coiiiiHoii  eve,  the  loss  occasioiuMl  l)y  ihc  hoal  strikiitu'  on  it 
ou/jjht    to    !)('    considered    as   eomiiiu'    williiii    the   ('.\cei)ti()n 


wliieli  einl)raees  all  danu'ers  of  navi«ration. 


S 


117/ 


II- rr 


( 


(iri'ti'i' 


L  111  hie    III    Sj)i'<-iii/    ( 'iisi\^ 


T 


burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  shipper  to  show  that    the   los> 
was  from  a  cause  for  which   l)v  the  verv  terms  of  the   con- 


tract the  cari'ier  was  to  lie  lial>h 


Thus  where  the   lial)ilil\ 


of  a  common  carrier  for  loss  or  damage  is  limited  l>v  e\- 
pi'ess  contract  to  the  case  of  fraud  or  ;;ross  ne<^lii:-enc(>  di' 
himself,  his  aiicnts  oi-  his  servants,  in  an  action  against  him 
the  burden  of  proviui;  such  fraud  or  neiiliiicnce  is  on  the 
plaintiff,  who  must  also  show  that  su<-h  fraud  or  ne_<:li,i:'<'Ucc 
was  the  cause  of  or  at  least  contrihuled  to  the  injury.-' 

§  '2')'.\.  W'lii'i'i'  h\iriji/in>i.'<  iiri'  ('mii/i/iDiui/. —  AN'hei'e  the 
exceptions  are  contlitional  the  carrier  umst  >how  his  compli- 
ance with  the  conditions,  as  where  iron  is  shipped,  the  car- 
rier not  to  he  liable  for  rust  if  the  iron  is  properly  stowed, 
he  must  show  that  it  was  ])roperly  stowed.-'' 


§  2")4.  Pli'inliini. — In  actions  of  the  kind  considered  in 
this  treatise,  the  declai'ation  >liould  be  upon  the  comnutn 
law  liability  of  the  defendant  as  a  common  caiiiei',  for  if 
the  shipper  should  declare  upon  the  l)iil  of  ladint;",  he  would 


n>- 


bo  by  his  pleadiniis  (-stopped  from  I'aisini:' the  <|uestion  of 
sent  to  the  exemptions  under  whiih  the  carriei-  .-eeks  to  escape 
liability.  If,  however,  for  any  I'casons,  suit  is  broULi'ht  upon 
the  express  contract  its  excejitions  must  be  >lalcd — at    least 


tl 


loso  uliich  "■()  to  discharufe  him   entii'clv 


he   |»erson    to 


-^  Adams  Kxju'css  Co.  v.  i.ucli.  7  Hii-li. -«!i!i  i  ls7(>) :  I?iiiik,ii(l  v.  r.:il;i- 
iiioro  ^c.  i{.  Co..  :M  Mil.  I'.»7  (1S7II-I:  I.mimIsIm'i;;  v.  Diii-iiiKiv.  I  |)iily. 
4!)0  (iS7;n:  St. ■CIS  V.  I,iv(.'r|in.il  \r.  SLMin^liip  Co..  .■)7  \.  Y.  1  (IS7I). 
To  inslriict  tlic  jury  in  siidi  a  tmsc  that  tiM' liiiiili'ii  uf  jiioof  is  on  tii(> 
tlcfoiidaiit  is  cnor.  ami  tin"  jii(l;;m.'iil  will  In-  ii'Vcim'iI  on  apiiral.  m>t- 
witlisiamliii;;  tlic  fart  lliai  tin-  t'viil<'iifi' a-  ii  -lainl*  -iinws  m';il:i;cm'r. 
('(iclii-aii  V.  Diii-iiH.i-c.  tl)  N.  Y.  -.M'.t  (ls7-_'):  Cra-iii  v.  New  YnrK  \c.  ];. 
Co..  r.l  X,  Y.  lil    (lS72j. 

2»  Kdwaids  V.  Tin'  Caliawlia.  I  I  I.a.  Aim.  JJI  (is.Vi), 

-'"  Fi'fijiisoii  V.  Capjii'Mii.  <i  II.  i^  .1.  ;>'.M  (is-j.-)) ;  I'alrcjiild  v.  Siofiiiii.  I'l 
Wi'iid.  :{2'.(  (isii.s);  .s.  <•.  7  Hill. -J'.iJ  (lsi;;j;  (  laiU  v.  St.  I.f.nis  \r.  IJ.  Co., 


(11.  XII. J 


lU  KDKN  OK  I'ltOOF. 


381 


CU.   XI!. 

•  to  (li,. 
iiy  on  it 
xcc|)(i()ii 


llic  loss 
lie  coii- 
li:il)ilil\ 
I  l.v  (X- 
Ll'ciicc  oj' 

iiist  him 
;  on  Ihc 
il'liiicncc 


V 


•-'I 


icrr  the 
<'oinj»li- 
llic  riw- 
slowt'd, 

I('I(m1  in 
I'oninion 
",  foi-  if 
I'  Would 
m  of  :i>- 

0  cscnix" 
lit  upon 
Mt  least 
rson  to 

V.    J'.Ml.i- 

.  J   Daly. 

1  (IK7I). 
s  on  ilii- 
i;il.  not- 
ili;;viicf. 
V  A<-.  i;. 


whom  the  n't'ci))!  is  nivcii  may  l)rini>-  the  action  for  the 
joss,  altliouu'h  the  ])roi)('rty  may  hcloiiu"  to  aiiollicr,  tlio  con- 
Iract  I)cin<r  with  him.-' 

r,l  Mil.  IK)  (1S77);  aiid  sec  Oxlry  v.  Si.  T,<iiii>  Af.  U.  Co..  (;:>  >I(i.  C-J'.t 
(1S77):  Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiulis  iicc.  |{.('n.  v.  licimny.  Hi  liul.  .")ls  (is.Mij ;  'rii;;^ic 
V.  S!.  I.iMiis  iSic.  I{.  Co..  <i2  Ml).  12.".  (1S7(i):  .JcffiM-soiiviilc  iKic  H.  <'o.  v. 
Worliiml,  .">(»  lull.  ICtii  (is;.".). 
s- NorlluTU  I/nii'  I'lK-kct  Co.  v,  Sliciiier.  ;;i  111.  'XW  (l,s7I). 


•film,  i:) 
.  K.  Co., 


w 


382 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  CAKKIEHS. 


[CH.  XIII. 


C'lIAlTKK  XIII. 


iji— -i 


■'. 


I'MUOVOUTEI)    CASKS.* 

SKCTION. 

'25.').  I'liwuix  Insiinoicc  Cinnptivii  v.  Eric  oiid  ]\'rstrni  Tniuxpurtatinn 
CuiniHtittj. —  Power  Ki  J.iinit  I-i.iliility  —  ]{nl(' in  Illinois  as  to 
Assent  to  Conditions  —  I{i<;iit  of  Insnrer — I'owci-  of  (.'anitT  to 
Contract  for  Hcncllt  of  In^nraiu'c — Illinois  Statntc  Construed. 
— I'liited  Stales  Distiiet  Court.  Kastern  District  of  AVisconsin. 

•2.")(i.  liichardu  v.  JIiihsdi. —  Common  Carriers  by  Water  —  Kxeeptions 
of  ■•  Perils  of  the  .Sea."  ■•  I.eaka;;e,  l$re;ika;;<'  or  Itiist" — Xei;- 
lij^ence — Hnrden  of  Proof. —  Iniied  .S(at<'s  (.Jircnit  Court. 
District  of  Massaelmsetts. 

•2.")7.  HVr^/c-i'iHcr  v.  I'cininijlvdiiin  ItiiUrtntil  Cumpanii. —  Assent  to  Con- 
ditions in  iJill  of  Ladinji — Kxceptionsfrom  Loss  by  ••  I'ii'c  " — 
Burden  of  Proof — Acts  of  Moli. — Initcd  States  Circuit  Conit. 
Southern  District  of  Xesv  York. 

'ITtS.  Iht'il  V.  J'l'UHsulviniin  Jt'iilnmil  t't)iiip<iii>i. — Status  of  ('arrier  After 
Special  Contract — Delay — Destruction  of  Property  by  Molt  — 
Kxoeption  from  Loss  '•  While  in  Transit  or  Depots."- — I'mIiciI 
States  Circuit  Coin-t.  Kastern  District  of  Pcnn-ylvania. 

'J.">!l.  (iiilt  r.  Aihnns  Kxprcs)!  Ciniijiiiiij/. —  Kxpress  Company  —  ••  I-'or- 
warder" — \ej>ii;ceni'e  —  Condition  in  Kcceij)!  as  to  N'alui'  oi 
Article  —  Duly  of  Shipper. —  Supreme  Court  of  the  Di.-lrict  of 
( 'olumliia. 

2<ili.  Jliiii/>-  iif  lunliickij  r.  Ail-nn.i  Kj-prcsx  ( 'mil paint. —  Kxpress  ('om- 
pany — I/ialiiliiy  for  Lust-cs  ( 'aused  l)y  \e<jli;icnce  of  Railroad 
—  Condition  in  I'eeeipt  I.imiiiiiix  I.ialiility — i;\idciicc  ol 
Assent. —  rnited  Stales  <  ircnit  Court.  Distiii-t  of  Kentucky. 

2(il.  /)'»)•/»'  r.  iSdiitliiiistmi  Ikiiihriiij  Ciniijiiiii;!. —  Passenj^er  Tickets- — 
Conditions  Printed  Thereon  —  Notice. —  Knjilisb  Ili.uh  Court 
of  .lustice.  Connnon  Pleas  Division. 

*  The  eases  civen  In  this  chaitter  are  not  at  this  time  accessible  to  the 
j)rofessioii.  not  beiiijj  as  yet  published  in  the  reports.  Reports  of  two  of 
them  have  ai»peared  in  the  news|iapers.  and  the  others  with  one  excep- 
tion are  not  likely  to  be  elsewhere  reported  in  an  authoritative  form. 


CH.  XI 


( n.  XIII. 


INUKI'OIttKI)  CASKS. 


3H3 


ii  2.V>.- POWER  TO  I.IMITMABILITY-IM'LKTIX  II.LIXOIS  AS 
TO  ASSIOXT  TOCONDITIONS— i;i(;ilT  OF  INSri{i;i{— I'OWKR 
OF    CAKHIKR  TO    ("ONTKACT    FOR    HFNKFIT   OF    IXSl'R- 

AXCK  — ii.MNois  sTATrTi:((JXsTi{ri:i). 


I'IKKMX   iNSriiANCK  ('(IMI'ANV  V.   VauK  AM)  WksTKKX  TkAXS- 
I'OH'IATION  ( '( ).M I'AN Y . 

I'nilid  Stiitt'x  IHstrkt  Cnurt.  Enstrru  Dhtrkt  nf  Wincmisl)!,  Octuhi'r,  ISTil. 

IJt'forc  lloii.  e'ii.vi{i.K>  K.  DvKU,  District  Jiid^^e. 


n.^iiiirliiliiiit 

iiois  as  Id 
r.'inicr  to 

'oiisinicd. 

kViscdiisiii. 
Xfi'ptidiis 
f-X.-- 

iiit   ('(lint. 

It  to  Con- 
•■  Fiiv  •'— 
■lilt  Coiiii. 

•liiT  After 
l).V  M(.l.— 
■— I'liitfd 
ia. 

—  ••  F..r- 
\'aliii'  oi' 
>i>llirt  of 

'ss  ( 'oin- 
!>'uiii-oail 
delict'  of 
ieiitiici<y. 
'icKois  — 
;;li  ("inirl 

lie  to  the 
»f  two  of 
?  excej)- 
oriii. 


1.  A  common  carrier  may  limit  liis  common  law  lialiility  by  contract, 

but  can  not  lawfully  sii|nilalc  for  cxcmiition  from  responsibility  for 
tiu'  niiscondnct  or  ncjrli^jeiicc  of  biinsclf  or  Ills  servants. 

2.  In  Illinois  a  strict  rule  exists  relative  to  i)roof  of  atUrmative  assent 

to  conditions  in  tbe  contijicts  of  carriers  limilinjj  their  common  law 
lialdlity. 

:?.  An  insurer  of  ;;oo<ls  lost  while  in  the  course  (>f  trans])ortation  by  a 
common  carrier  is  entiiKnl  after  |iayment  of  the  loss  to^recover 
what  he  has  paid,  by  suit  afj;ainst  the  carrier. 

-1.  A  common  carrier  has  an  insurable  interest  in  the  jjoods  he  carries 
and  has  jiower  to  make  a  contract  j^iviiiix  to  himself  the  benelit  of 
any  insurance  effected  on  them  by  the  owner. 

.">.  In  the  contracts  of  common  carriers,  if  an  exci-pted  loss  be  remotely 
t-aused  l)y  the  ne<  liixeiiee  of  the  carrier,  the  latter  is  still  liable  noi- 
withstandiiif^  the  I'xi-eption. 

tl.  In  the  case  of  mari  ,e  insurance,  a  loss  \vhos(>  proximat<'  causi'  is  one 
of  the  is'\s  emu  .crated  in  the  policy  is  char^i'eable  to  the  under- 
writers, a.thoii;;li  the  remote  cause  may  l)e  traced  to  the  ncfilijjence 
of  liie  master  or  mariners. 

7.  Hills  of  lai'iiii!;  iriveii  by  tile  carrier  to  the  shipper  jirovided  that  the 
former  should  not  be  lialile  for  losses  caused  by  ••  dan.n'ci's  of  navi- 
iralion."  and  that  in  case  of  loss  for  which  the  owner  should  be  lia- 
lile. he  should  have  the  benelii  of  aii\'  insurance  effecicd  by  ilie 
shipper  on  the  iiropeiiy  transported.  'I'lie  |)roi)eriy  was  lost  thron;L;li 
the  nenlii.;ence  of  the  carrier.  'I'lu'  insurance  company  liaviiij;  paid 
the  lo>s  to  the  >hipper:  //'/'/.  that  the  company  had  no  jij^ht  of 
act  ion  aiiaiibl  the  carrier. 

!S.  'i'he  Illinois  s,atiile  forbiddiuii'  contracts  limitiiiji'  the  liabilities  of  car- 
riers (joes  not  affect  the  riirhl  of  the  carrier  to  contract  with  the 
shipper  for  the  bciiclit  of  insurance. 

'I'liis  Wits  ;i  libel   to  fccovof  for  llio   loss  of  ccrtttiii  slii|)- 
mcnts  of  o-fiiin  (li'li\  eicd  on  l)oard  the  i)ro[)i!lk'r  Merchtint, 


■  t.;.4tJ.i 


|a*»»i- 


JJ84 


TIIK  roM'KACTs'oi"  ("AlilMKItS.  [('II.   XIII. 


ii 


m 


i^i*' 


.Tilly  '2\  1S7I,  Ml  ("liiciiiio.  to  1>('  lr!ms|)()rl('(l  so  far  us  it  wiis 
to  1)0  i'iirrii'd  on  tlic  Inkcs  to  Kric,  I'm. 

At  the  time  stMtcil  lilu'llMiil  wms  m  corixuMlioli  of  the 
State  of  .New  York,  Miitliori/cd  to  tiMiisact  a  jj^riuTMl  lake 
niid  iiilaml  iiisiii-ancc  hiisiiicss.  l{<'s|ioii(l»'iit  was  a  torpor- 
atioii  of  tiic  State  of  I'eiiiisylvania  authorized  to  cany  on 
the  business  of  lake  transportation,  and  was  tiie  prctprictor 
of  a  liii'  of  proi)ellers  runninjj;  hetwei  ii  Hrie  and  hd<i'  ports, 
desiufiiated  as  the  "  Anchor  Line,"  one  of  wiiieii  l)oats  was 
the  propelU-r  Mereliant . 

On  said  litth  day  of  ,luly,  ls;4,  the  Merchant  received 
on  board  at  Chicago.  l(i,.'{2.'>..'5 4  bushels  of  corn,  coiisiuned 
to  A.  M.  Wrijiht  iSc  Co.  :  NdO  bu>hels  of  corn,  coiisiufned  to 
Klniendorf  c'»c  Co.,  and  i;.s!I.Ol'  buslicls  of  oats  and  ;57(».;{() 
bushels  of  corn,  i'orisi<;iicd  to  (Jilbert  Wolcott  iSi;  Co.  liills 
of  ladiiiLT  were  issued  for  and  on  account  of  tiiese  sevci'al 
sliipnients,  t he  parts  of  which  a<'knowh'di:'iuii'  receipt  of  the 
^rain  wei'e  as  foUows  : 

•  "Keceived  Chieajio  ,1uly  I'Mh,  of  A.  .M.  V/rioht  c^L  Co., 
the  followini;  packau"e>  (contents  unknown),  in  apparent 
good  condition  -KK)  l)usiicls  corn;  oi'der  A.  .M.  Wi'iiihl  cSc 
Co.,  Liverpool,  Knir.  X(»lifv  American  Steauisliip  Co., 
PhilMdeli)hia,  Ta.     Pro  Mer«-hant."' 

«'  Received  Chicago  ,hdy  -JWh  1874,  of  Klmendorf  <Sc  Co., 
the  foHowiuir  paekaires  (contents  unknown),  in  api)arent 
good  condition,  1(!,.'}2.'J.;{4  bushels  of  corn  ;  order  Hlnu-ndorf 
&Co.  Notify  Abni.  Whitenack,  Hound  lirook,  N.  ,].  ;  400 
bushels  corn,  order  sanu'.  Notify  Wilkinson,  (ieddes  vt  Co., 
Newwark,  N.  J." 

"Keceived  Chicago  .bily  l^lth  1S74,  of  (iilbert  Wolcott 
&  Co.,  the  foMowing  packages  (contents  unknown),  in  ap- 
l)areiit  good  condition  (is*). 02  bushels  white  oats,  .'{7(t.;50 
bushels  No.  2  corn;  order  (Jill)ert  Wolcott  iSL  Co.  Notify 
Louis  liuehler,  'raina<|ua,  I'a.      Pro.  Mei'chant." 

Material  parts  of  the  heading  of  thes(>  bills  of  lading 
■were  as  follows  :  "Anchor  Line  :  I^ake  and  Kail  vi(t  Va-'w 
Jind   the  Anchor   Line  Steamers,  from   all    Lake   Michiuan 


.(•11.  Xlll. 

.'IS  if  wiis 

1     of     III,. 
(•I'M  I    |;ik,. 

1  <()i'|i(»r- 

•  •MI'l'V  oil 

ropricior 

l\i'  |)(>l1s. 
•oats  was 

!•('(•(. iv('(| 
>llsi,l!ll('(l 

siiiucd  to 
il  .•i70.;{() 
o.  r.ills 
1'  scvcr.'il 
>1  of  tin- 

1  ct  Co., 
!i))|)ai-cii| 
rri.iiiil  cSc 
lii|)  Co., 

■f  cVi  Co., 
appai-ciif 

IlK'luloi'f 

.1.  ;  100 
s  ct  Co., 

Wolcotl 
),  ill  ap- 

;{7o.;5o 

Xolifv 

ladinir 
't'c  Kric 
Iicliii>;iii 


(11.  XIll.] 


I  XltKI'OUTKI)  (ASKS. 


;w.') 


ports.  Tlio  Kiic  and  Western  Transportation  Company  is 
the  proprietor  of  the  '  Anchor  Line,"  whicii  issues  tiiis  l>ili 
of  hidiiiii",  and  is  a  .-ori-oralion  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
lia\  inj:  a  real  capital.  The  '  Anchor  Line  '  is  the  authorized 
and  e.vcluslve  ajrent  of  the  I'ennsylvania  Kailroad  Co.,  for 
its  lake  husiness  rht  the  I*Iiil;idel|)hia  «t  Krie  Kailroad  and 
connections.  It  offers  to  the  puhlic  a  line  of  first  class  pro- 
pellers between  the  city  of  Krie  and  lake  ports.  Kesponsi- 
l)le  through  hills  of  lading  and  the  shortest  lake  and  rail  lino 
to  the  Kast." 

In  the  hill  of  lading  issued  to  Wright  &  Co.,  was  the 
olauso,  "  rates  from  Chicago  to  Philadelphia,  KIc.  per. 
hush.;"  in  that  issued  to  Elmendorf  it  Co.,  "  rates  from 
(Miicago  to  Bound  Hrook  and  Newark,  17c.  per  hush.  ;"  and 
in  that  issued  to  (iill)ert,  Wolcott  tt  Co.,  was  the  clause, 
"rates  from  Chicago  to  Tannnpui,  Pa.,  corn  17c.  oats  lie. 
hush."  Each  of  these  hills  contained  these  further  clauses  : 
"  That  the  said  Anchor  Line  and  the  steaml)(>ats,  railroad 
companies  and  forwarding  lines  with  which  it  connects,  and 
which  receive  said  property,  shall  not  he  liable  *  ♦  * 
for  loss  or  damage  by  lire,  collision  or  the  dangers  of  navi- 
gation while  on  seas,  bays,  harbors,  rivers,  lakes  or  canals. 
And  where  grain  is  shipi)ed  in  bulk,  the  said  Anchor  Line  is 
hereby  authorized  to  deliver  the  same  to  the  Elevator  Coni- 
l)any  at  Erie,  as  the  agent  of  the  owner  or  consignee  for 
trans-shipment  (but  witliout  further  charge  to  such  owner  or 
consignee),  into  the  cars  of  the  connecting  railroad  com- 
panies or  forwarding  lines,  and  when  so  tranship.ped  in  bulk, 
the  said  Anchor  Line  iind  the  said  connecting  railroad  com- 
pany or  carrier  .shall  be  and  is,  in  consideration  of  so  receiv- 
ing the  same  for  carriage,  liere])y  exempted  and  released 
from  all  liability  for  loss  either  in  (piantity  or  weight,  and 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  other  exemptions  and  conditions 
herein  contained.  It  is  further  stipulated  and  agreed,  that 
in  case  of  any  loss,  detriment  or  damage  done  to  or  sus- 
tained by  any  of  the  property  hereby  receipted  for  during 
such  transportution,  whereby  any  legal  liability  or  rcsponsi- 
25 


it 


mii 


!'  ■ 


t 
V 


I     I 


386 


TIIR  rONTUACTS  OK  fAUUIKKS. 


[{•II.   XIM. 


I)ility  shall  or  niuy  •»'  inciirrod,  lliut  «(Uiii)iiny  aloiu'  slmll  lii> 
Ih'M  aiiswi'rahlc  tlnTcfor  in  whosi'  at'tual  custody  the  sanic 
may  bo  at  tlic  time  of  the  lia|)|K>niii<^  of  su<'li  loss,  dctri- 
nicnt  or  daina;j:(>,  and  the  carrier  so  lialtlc  shall  have  the  full 
heiieHt  of  any  insurance  that  niav  have  Iteeii  effected  uiiuii 
or  on  account  of  said  <xoods." 

On  the  day  of  .shipment  the  lihellant  throuirh  its  a<reut  in 
('hica<ro,  made  an  insurance  on  the  eonsi<j:mnent  to  Wrijilit 
«fc  Co.,  of  $«,<»(>(>,  on  that  to  Klmendorf  .^c  Co.,  of  JAi^O, 
and  on  that  to  (Jilhert,  Wolcott  c\t  Co.,  of  $7(H>. 

The  Merchant  laden  with  the  <rridn  covered  l>y  these  hills 
of  ladinjr,  left  the  poi't  of  Cliica'jfo  .Inly  2lth,  and  i)rocee(l('d 
on  her  voya;j:e  to  Krie.  Ilavinjr  reached  a  point  ahout  ten 
miles  south  of  Milwaukee,  she  was  on  the  next  day  at  ahout 
nine  o'clock  in  the  morninjr,  sti'an<h'd  in  a  fo<;  on  the  west 
shore  of  Lake  Michijran.  liy  reason  of  this  event  there 
was  a  total  loss  to  tin' shippers  of  these  several  shipnu'nts 
of  <i;rain.  Notices  of  altandonment  wei'c  iriven  to  the  in- 
surance company,  and  on  claim  made,  lilx'llant  paid  to  the 
several  shippers  the  amounts  of  insurance  on  tlu'ir  resj)(>c- 
tive  shipments  as  and  foi-  a  total  loss. 

Thi'  lil)«'l  alle<;ed  thai  these  shipments  of  ;rrain  were 
phu'cd  on  hoai'd  the  .M«'rchant,  to  l»e  carried  to  Krie  and 
there  d(  livered  foi'  the  shippers  for  ti'anshipment  ;  that  the 
loss  did  not  occur  hy  reason  of  tire,  collision  or  the  daiiiicrs 
of  navijration.  hut  was  occasioue(l  hy  the  unseaworthiness  of 
the  vessel,  and  unskilfidness,  carelessness  and  neirliirence 
in  her  conduct  and  manaircmcnt  while  on  hei'  voyaire  :  and 
that  hy  payment  of  the  insin-ance  on  said  shipments,  lihel- 
hint  became  suhroirated  to  all  the  riirhts.  intei'csts  and  rifflits 
of  action  of  the  assured  airainst  the  carriei'.  It  was  aUo 
alle<r('d  that  these  shipments  of  jfrain  weic  in  fact  wholly 
lost,  except  about  '),1.HS  hushels,  which  <|uantily  was  brouirht 
into  the  port  of  Milwaukee  in  a  perishable  condition,  and 
unfit  for  trans-shipment,  and  was  sold  by  respondent  for 
$l,o;{7.(;(). 

The  suit  beiiiir  hi  pcrKoiKifii,  and  the  respondtMit   beinjr  :v 


M.   XIII. 


f'H.  XIII.] 


rM{Kl*OnTEI)  CASKS. 


387 


cm*,'  a 


lorponitioM  of  imotlicr  State,  si'ivicc  was  oltta'mcd  l»v  pro- 
cess of  attiK'ImuMit  levied  upon  a  vessel  of  the  Anchor  Line, 
found  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  eo\irt  us  authorized  by 
the  rules  in  admiralty. 

The  answer  pnl  thi-  lihellant  upon  proof  of  various  alle- 
irations  in  the  lihel,  and  denied  that  the  loss  was  occasioned 
hy  unseaworthineuM  of  the  propeller,  or  the  unskiifulness, 
niisinana^ement,  carelessness  or  ne^dijrencc  of  respondent, 
<ir  of  anv  of  its  otHeers,  ajreiits  ov  servants.  It  is  alleo-ed 
that  the  propeller  was  seaworthy,  and  that  the  loss  occurred 
by  a  peril  of  navi<;ation  without  any  fault  of  the  vessel,  or 
any  fault,  ne;.dii:ence  or  want  of  skill  on  the  part  of  those 
in  charge  (»f  her. 

As  an  atlirinative  defense  it  was  allejred  that  at  the  time 
of  the  loss,  the  <rrain  covered  hv  the  hills  of  ladinjr  was  in 
the  actual  custody  of  the  respondent,  which  was  the  carrier 
thereof,  and  that  if  any  liability  arose  on  account  of  the  loss, 
which  is  denied,  resi>ondent  was  the  company  and  carrier 
aloiH!  answerable  tlwrefor,  and,  therefore,  that  by  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bills  of  ladinjx,  respondent  became  entitled  to 
the  full  benefit  of  the  insurance  on  the  <:rain  :  and  so,  that 
no  action  could  be  maintained  by  libellant  against  respond- 
ent on  account  of  the  loss. 

A  furlher  defcn  <■  interposed  was  that  the  court  had  iio 
jurisdiction  of  the  snliject-matter  of  this  action:  and  the 
irround  of  this  defense  was  that  bv  the  bills  of  ladini;  the 
grain  in  (piestion  was  to  be  transported  by  respondent  by 
boat,  railway  companii's  and  forwarding  lines  to  points  and 
places  in  the  States  of  IVnnsylvania  and  New  Jersey,  viz : 
IMiiladelphia,  Taina(iua,  Bound  Hrook  and  Newark;  that  it 
was  understood  and  iigrced  by  the  parties  that  part  of  the 
transportation  should  i)e  pcifoinied  on  laml  and  by  means 
of  railroad  cars,  and  that,  therefore,  thi-  alleged  causes  of 
action  set  out  in  the  libel  were  not  causes  of  admirality 
jurisdiction. 

\''(i»  I)i/h'i{'  Van  Z)y/iY' and  ^//iH<o?j.v  for  libellant :  Liptdr 
and  Ilibhai'd  for  respondent. 


^'TW^-m^- 


■■^mt^^iimm^m/imni/rsi^ 


'Ash 


Tin;  < ONTUArTs  oi'  CAKIMKIW.  [(II.   Xlll. 


Wi 


M 


hvi.'NHl 


I)vi:i!,  ,).  : 

Upon  tlic  is-iics  iiiiidc  l»y  the  |ilcM(liiijis,  (lircc  «(U('.sti()ii« 
iii'isc  wliicli  were  vcrv  fiillv  iiiid  iiMv  ar.u'iH'il  at  I  lie  l»ar,  mm 
the  priiK-ipal  (|iu>sti()iis  in  llu>  ciisi* . 

1.  Ila-^  the  court  jmixliclioii  of  the  suhjccl-niattcr  of  tins 
at-tioii. 

'2.  If  tlic  court  has  jurisdiction  and  tlic  case  is  to  l>c  coii- 
sidciH'd  on  its  nicrils,  was  the  loss  occasioned  solely  by  a 
peril  of  navi^ratioii,  or  l»y  the  unseaworthiness  of  the  vessel 
Of  the  ne<;li^cncc  and  uiiskilfidness  of  those  in  charge  of 
her,  eitlier  in  connection  with  or  in  the  ahsence  of  such 
peril  ? 

3.  Is  the  respoinh'iit  entitled  to  the  henofit  of  the  insui'- 
unce  in  this  easi*. 

[The    c(mrl   decided  the  fjuestion   of  juristliction  in  the 
attirinative.] 
«  ««  «««  •« 

Sect  nut :  To  what  was  the  standing!  of  the  |»ropeller  at- 
tril)utal)le?  Did  it  arise  solely  from  a  peril  of  navijration. 
or  was  there  eo-operatiiiir  neirliirencc^? 

[Tpcni  a  review  of  the  facts  which  this  »iuestion  involved, 
it  was  lieM  l)y  the  court  that  there  was  ne<rli<r»'nce  on  the 
part  of  the  master  and  mariners  who  were  navijralini;  the 
vessel  at  the  time,  and  that  alth()U<rh  a  peril  of  navi^jation 
was  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss,  the  remott^  cause  was 
such  nejjiiirence.] 

Tliifd:  The  last  and  ...ore  ditKcult  and  intercstinj^' (pies- 
tion  remains  to  he  consitlored,  namely  :  Is  the  respondent 
entitled  to  the  henetit  of  the  Insurance  in  this  ease? 

The  various  j^rounds  upon  which  lihellant  urj!;es  its  right 
to  recover  are  : 

1.  That  the  loss  in  (jucstion  was  occasioned  by  the  negli- 
gence of  the  carrier  ;  that,  therefore,  the  shippers  had  a  right 
of  action  again.«t  the  currier,  notwithstanding  the  stipula- 
tions in  the  l)ills  of  lading  limiting  its  liability  ;  that  the 
insurance  company  having  paid  the  amount  of  the  losses  to 
the  shippers,  became  subrogated  to  their  rights,  and  nniy, 


I.  xm, 


(11.  xm.] 


I'MtKl'OIITKI)  CAmKS. 


:w) 


if>tioii> 
l»ar,  as 

>f  I  his 

)('    Cdll- 

y  l»y  a 

Vl'SScI 

irjr<'  of 
)f    such 


ill   tli(> 


h'l-  at- 


may, 


thcn-fdrc,  nciiiitaiii  its  nction  anraii,s|  il,,.  ,iiiii,.r  {\,y  the 
ainounl  si.  p.iid.  iunl  the  <anifr  can  not  avail  it^'(•li■  of  the 
clause  ill  till'  Mils  nf  ladiii;;  <:iviii<;' to  it  the  licr.cllt  of  llic 
iiisiiraiicc.  the  loss  liaviii«r  n'siilted  from  its  nwii  iie"'li"(  ncc. 

•J.  That  it  is  not  proven  tiiat  the  shi|»|)crs  allirniativcly 
assented  to  the  limitations  of  lialtility  and  speci.il  provisions 
contained  in  the  Itills  of  ladinL^  and  Ih-iic*'  that  Mich  lialiili- 
tics  and  provisions  are  not  part  of  the  contracts  of  >hip- 
meiits. 

•  \,  That  the  clinises  in  the  hills  of  ladinu' liinitinir  lial>ility, 
ilicludiiiL''  the  provision  in  <|iiestion,  are  wholly  void  hecaiise 
<d'  a  sl.'itiite  of  the  Slate  of  Illinois  where  the  contracts 
were  made,  which  makes  it  unlawful  for  a  common  carrier 
to  limit  its  common  law  liuhility  safely  to  deliver  property 
l»y  any  stipulation  or  limitation  expressed  in  the  receipt 
jriveii  for  siieh  property. 

The  priiK'ipal  pi  ((positions  nr^red  in  reply  hy  respondent 
are: 

1.  That  it  clearly  appears  from  the  proofs  that  the  i»ills 
of  hidinir  with  all  the  clauses  and  stiimlations  which  they 
c(»iitaiii  constituted  the  contracts  between  the  carrier  and 
the  shipper  under  which  the  lirain  was  shipped. 

2.  That  the  statute  of  Illinois  referred  to  does  not  ap])ly 
to  hills  of  ladiiij;  issued  on  account  of  shipments  as  in  this 
case,  and  that  in  any  event  it  is  not  eontrollinjr  upon  this 
c(»urt,  the  (luesiion  involved  Itein^r  one  of  sieneral  commer- 
cial law. 

3.  That  the  stipulation  <rivin«r  to  the  cai'rier  the  henetit  of 
insurance  is  valid,  even  thousrh  the  carrier  can  not  relieve 
itself  from  the  eonse(pienee  of  its  own  neirlijrence  :  that 
whether  the  losses  in  (piestioii  arose  from  iu\irli.irence  or  not, 
after  the  insurance  coiiii>any  made  payment  to  the  shii)pers, 
they,  the  shippers,  had  no  rijiht  of  action  aiiainst  the  car- 
rier: that,  therefore,  there  was  no  rijiht  to  which  lihellant 
could  lie  siihrojrated,  and  as  a  conse(|Uence  that  no  action 
will  lie  auainst  respondent  ;  in  other  words  that  the  stipula- 
tion   in    (|iiestion    displaced   or  destroyed   the   riuht    which 


'«'W»>^»l««!mKM9^»|^»)WWW!!?W 


8!  10 


THK  (ONTIIACTS  OF  fAKHIKUS.  [c'll.  XIII. 


l4i^- 


nii^ilit  oth»'rwisi>  exist  of  the  iiisurimrc  <'oiiipii-.,y  on  \n\y- 
iiu'iit  of  tlu'  insurance  to  proeoeii  ajrainst  the  caiTier  for  re- 
inihurseiiient. 

Witho  it  Jioiiifj  at  larir*'  into  the  proofs  upon  the  (piestion 
it  will  suffice  to  say  that  I  think  the  hills  of  ladiiiir  should 
he  r.'iiarded  as  the  contracts  i)et\veen  the  shipjsers  anil  the 
carrii'i'  under  which  the  jj^rain  was  shipped.  It  is  true  that 
the  decisions  in  Illinois  enuiu'iate  a  very  stiict  rule  in  I'cla- 
tion  to  proof  of  attirnjative  assent  to  special  conditions  in 
such  contracts  —  a  rule  much  stricter  than  is  laid  down  liy 
the  Supreme  Court  of  this  State  and  other  courts.  Ihit  the 
[)roofs  here  aie  veiT  satisfactory  as  t(t  the  shippers'  under- 
standiui;  and  knowledire  of  the  chara<ter  and  contents  of 
these  hills  of  ladinjjr  and  as  to  thcii"  acceptance  of  (hem 
with  such  knowlediic  of  their  characlt'r.  'i'he  case  is  much 
strouirer  in  that  regard  upon  the  facts  than  Itailrndd  ('iit)i- 
ptiDi/  r.  M(tnii/<Kfiiriinf  Coinjxnii/,^  in  whi<h  it  was  hehl 
that  an  unsiuiied  Li'eneial  notice  printc(|  on  the  lia<k  of  the  re- 
ceipt does  not  amount  toa  special  contract  limit  in<:°  the  com- 
mon law  lialiility,  thoutiii  the  receipt  with  such  notice  on  i? 
nuiy  have  been  taken  without  dissent.  In  this  Stute  it  ha-; 
heen  held  that  when  such  a  contiact  is  shown  in  the  cu.-.tod\ 
of  the  shipper  its  due  ilelivery  and  his  assent  to  its  t«'rms 
are  to  lie  presuine(l,  and  thiit  the  hurden  is  upon  him  to  ol)- 
viate  these  presumptions  l>y  proof.  Ihit  it  is  not,  I  think, 
necessary  to  ijjo  thus  far  in  order  to  sustain  thoe  hills  of 
ladinii' as  com racts  assented  t(»  hy  the  shippers.  IJy  allirni- 
ative  evidence  it  is  sutliciently  shovvn  that  they  were  under- 
.stood  and  accepted  as  the  contracts  under  which  the  ship- 
ments were  made  :  u.vi  \vhat  transpired  hclwcen  tiic  ship- 
pers and  the  a<r«*nt  of  the  «ai'rier  prior  to  the  delivery  on 
hoard  of  the  irrain  and  the  execution  of  the  hills  of  ladini:' 
were  evidently  understood  hy  the  parlies  as  only  the  usual 
preliminary  neirotiat  ions  ami  nnderstandini:'  in  re!:ition  to 
the  shipnu'iits  which  were  to  lie  follo>vcd  |»y  consummated 
eontra<ts  in  the  form  of  hills  of  hidinu. 
'  k;  Willi.  ;(i^  (1S72). 


II.   XIII. 


oil.  XIII.] 


IXKKI'OKTKU  CASKS. 


391 


•n  |)i»y- 
for  rc- 


Theiv  has  Imm'ii  iniich  lonirovorsy  in  the  courts  as  to  the 
power  of  11  ('oiiiinoii  carrier  to  limit  his  eoimnon  hx^v  lia- 
bility l>y  special  contract.  Since  the  cases  of  Xew  Jer.siu/ 
,Sfi'(im  yariifdfioti  Ciniijxnn/  r.  Mfrr/tants  IJatik^  iiiu\  York 
Cnitijumt/  r.  Central  Jiai/roml;'  the  <piestion  dealt  with  in- 
(Icpi'inlently  of  statutory  re<rulation  has  not  been  an  open 
one  in  the  Federal  c(Uirts  ;  and  the  rij^rht  (»f  the  carrier  to 
restrict  or  diminish  his  «reneral  liahilitv  l)v  special  contract 
has  been  re-atlirnu'd  in  h'difrodd  (.'oiiijKini/  c.  Mauiif'ardir- 
inij  Cninp'iiii/  ^  and  in  lUmh  of  ICfiifurki/  r.  Aifittns  Ex- 
press ('tun  pan  I/:'  It  is  e(|ually  well  settled  th'.tt  a  connnon 
cani'-r  can  not  lawfully  stipulate  for  exemption  fi'cun  re- 
spoiisiliility  for  the  misconduct  or  neirlijreiice  of  himself 
or  1.1s  servants," 

I'pon  a  tindinii"  of  ne^litrence  in  UMviiratiui!;  the  vessel, 
follows,  thcrcfoi'e,  in  the  case  at  bar  tlial  the  owners  of  the 
cai'i:i  could  have  rt'covered  auaiiist  t  carrier  notwilhstand- 
iiiLT  the  limitations  (d'  lial)i!ity  expressed  in  the  bills  of 
ladinir.  An  insurer  of  ijoods  lost  while  in  course  of  trans- 
])ortation  by  a  connnon  carrier  is  entitletl  after  [)aynM'nt  of 
the  loss  to  n'covei-  what  he  lias  paid  by  suit  iiirainsl  the  car- 
rier. No  rijiht.in  the  absence  of  special  coiiti'act  to  the 
cont rary.  is  b«'tt<  r  <'stablislied.  The  leual  principles  ui)on 
which  this  ri^ht  rests  are  most  clearly  stated  in  I  lull  r. 
lidilroiul  Cninpiiin's,''  \\y  Mr,  diistice  Sruoxci,  who  says: 
"  It  is  too  well  settli  (f*l»y  the  authorities  t(t  admit  of  (pies- 
tion  that  as  betw<'en  a  ( ominon  carrier  of  iroods  and  an  un- 
derwriter upon  them,  the  Iwliility  to  the  owner  for  their 
loss  or  (U'struction  is  primaiil\  upon  the  carrier,  while  the 
liabiiitvof  the  insurer  i- onlv  M<(uidarv.     'I'he  contract  of 


Wm 


iKnii": 


»(i  II. .w.  WW  (ISIS), 
•i;}  Wall.  1(17  (isti.")). 
<  IC,  Wail.  HIS  (IS72), 
■"X\  \  .  S.  17».  I  <'.'nt.  I..  .1.  :l.-.  (1S7C0. 

«  Kailioa*!  ('...v.  l.M.kwouil.   17  Wall.  ;!.")7   (IS7:$) :   H;tiilv  of  K.'iittitkv 
v.  A(l:iiii<  ilxpri'^-'  «'<>..  sujirn. 
■  i:«  Wall.  ;{t;7  *,1S71). 


3JI2 


TMK  COXIKAC  TS  OK  C  \i;i;i  KliS. 


fll.   XIII. 


M.K 


M 


■■«■• 


•        H" 


the  ciiiTicr  may  not  he  liiNl  in  onlci-  of  tiiiu-,  l)iit  it  is  lirst 
and  in'incip.'il  in  iilliniati'  lial)ility.  In  iTspcd  to  the  owiicr- 
slii|)  of  the  jjfoods  and  the  risk  incident  tli-.Tcto.  tlic  owner 
and  the  insurer  ai'e  considered  Iml  one  peison,  iiavini:  tn- 
i:('tlier  the  henetieial  riiriit  to  the  inth'Minity  due  from  the 
<*arriei'  foi'  a  lireaeli  of  his  contract  or  for  non-pei'forniance 
of  his  h'iral  (hity.  StaiKhn:;'  thus,  a^  tiic  insurer  (hies. 
]>ra»'tieally  in  liie  position  of  a  surety.  sti|tuhitinu"  that  the 
•roods  shall  not  he  lost  or  injure<l  in  conse<|uenee  of  tiic 
peril  insui'ed  airainst,  whenever  he  has  indeinnilicd  the 
owner  for  th<'  loss,  he  is  entitled  to  all  the  means  of  in- 
demnity which  the  satisfied  owner  held  ai:ainst  the  paitv 
primarily  liahle.  His  riuht  rests  upon  familiar  piinciples 
of  e<|nity.  It  is  tlw  doetrin*-  of  sniuctiiation,  (lependent 
n<)(  at  all  upon  privity  of  contract  itut  worUi'd  out  Ihroujih 
the  rijiht  of  the  creditor  or  owner." 

Ill  Mfirt  r.  W't'sftrit  lidilriKiil  (  'nrfinrii/t'iui ,"  SiiAW,  ( '.  ,1., 
.states  the  principles  as  follows:  "  Now,  when  the  ownei', 
who  priiiiti  farlf  stands  to  the  whole  risk  and  suffers  the 
whole  loss,  has  eniraired  another  pei'son  to  he  at  that  jiartic- 
ular  risk  for  him  in  whole  oi-  in  pai't,  the  owner  and  the 
insurer  are,  in  i-espect  to  that  ownei'>hip  and  the  risk  inci- 
dent to  it,  in  effect  one  person,  ha\  iuL'  toirethei'  the  heneti- 
eial ri;rht  to  an  ind<'mnity  provided  I»y  law  for  thost-  who 
.><u.stain  a  loss  hy  that  particular  cause.  If,  therefore,  tlu' 
owner  demands  and  receives  payment  of  that  very  loss  frcun 
the  insurer,  as  he  may  hy  \irtue  of  his  contract,  thei'e  is  ;i 
manifest  eijuily  in  transferrin<r  the  ri^rht  to  indenmity  which 
he  holds  for  tin-  eommon  heiu'Ht  to  the  insurer.  It  is  one 
and  the  same  loss  for  which  he  has  a  claim  of  in<lenniitv 
and  he  can  e(|uitahly  receive  Imt  one  satisfaction,  .'^o  that 
if  the  assured  tir-t  appli<'s  to  the  r.tilroad  company  and  re- 
ceives the  damaiTcs  provided,  it  diiniinshes  his  loss  prn  (tuito 
hy  a  deduction  fntm  and  irrowini:  out  of  a  leiral  pi"o\  ision 
attached  to  and  intrinsic  in  the  suhjecl  injured.  The  lia- 
bility   of  the   i'ailro;nl  company  is  in    le;::il   effect    tii'st    and 

"  i:{  Met.  !M»  (1K47). 


/ 


I.    Mil. 


is   lirs( 

OWIICI-- 

owiicr 
lllli'  lo- 
>lii  the 
riii.iiicc 

•  Iocs. 
IMt     tllc 

■  III.. 

<ll  til.' 


<f 


Ill- 


Ill 


|»:irlv 
iplcs 


HIHlcllI 

llli>lli;ii 


('..I., 
owner, 

ITS  the 
piirtic- 
ikI   tlic! 

•k  iiici- 
Ih'IU'H- 

"*«•  who 

n>,  the 


fr 


OIII 


!•<'    IS    ;l 


w  liich 
is  (»iic 
'iimily 

o     tllllt 

ml  rc- 
'  1 1  III  fit 
•vision 
H'    li.i- 

-t     Mllil 


(11.   XIII 


•1 


rMM'.I'dJtTKI)  CASKS. 


3!)a 


|)rinci|)!il,  iiiul  fliMt  of  tin-  iiisnrcr  secondiirv  ;  not  in  order 
of  time  l»ul  ill  order  of  ultiniMte  lial>iritv.  'I'lie  assured 
may  first  apiily  to  uliieliever  of  tlioe  parties  lie  pleases — to 
the  railroad  eonipaiiy  l»y  his  ri-:lit  at  law,  (u-  to  the  insnr- 
aiiec  ei>m|)any  in  virtue  of  his  eontraet.  IJiit  if  he  fir>t  ap- 
plies til  '  railroad  eonipany  who  pays  him,  he  thei-eliv 
diminishe-  his  loss  i»\  the  application  (d'  a  sum  arisini;  out 


)f  the    >ntiieel   of   lli-'    iii-iirai 


lee,  to    wit  :    the 


liiiildm!::  in- 


jured, and  his  claim  is  for  the  iialance.  And  it  follows  as  a 
necessary  conse(|nence  that  if  he  tirst  applies  to  the  insurer 
and  receives  his  whole  loss,  he  liolds  the  claim  ajrainst  the 
railroad  coni|tany  in  tru>t  for  the  in>nrers.  Where  such  an 
(•(luity  exists  the  party  holdiiiir  the  leiral  riuiit  is  conseien- 
tioiisly  hound  1o  make  an  a>si<.fnment  in  e(|uitv  to  the  per- 
>on  entitled  to  tin-  lienetit  :  and  if  he  fails  to  do  so,  the 
rrsfid  i/tic  trust  may  sue  in  the  name  (d'  the  trustee  and  his 
eiplitahle  interest  will  he  protected." 

Now,  were  it  not  for  the  stipulation  eontaiiKMl  in  the  hills 
of  ladiiiiT  iriviii^  to  the  carrier  the  Itcnetit  of  the  insurance, 
I  lier<'  would  he  no  (|Uestioii  of  lihellant's  riirht  to  recover. 
And  tne  precise  poii»t  of  imiuirv  is  what  is  the  effect  of 
that  stipulation : 

The  •'p<'rils"  in>ured  airainst  were  jrenerally  "of  the  seas." 
anil  after  emimeratiiiLT  various  specilic  perils,  such  as  tires, 
enemies,  jettisons,  pirates  and  the  like,  the  policy  pi'ovides 
that  the  iiisuran<'e  coiupany  *'  takes  upon  itself  all  other 
perils,  lossrs  and  misfortunes  that  «  •  •  shall  come  to 
the  hurt,  (h-triment  or  damaire  of  the  said  j;oods  and  mer- 
chandise or  anv  part  thereof." 

The  (piestion  umh-r  cimsidei'at ion  was  to  a  «rreat  extent 
aririKMJ  hy  the  U*anied  coiuisi-l  for  lilxdlant,  upon  the  theory 
that    to  <rive  i«»  the  carrier  the  henetit  of  the   provision  re- 

votild    lie   to  irive  effect    to  the   limita- 


atiiiir  to  mwirapwe 


ti<«i  of  its  eMuunon  law   liahility  for  the  jrndn  and  its  safe 
<^♦•fr•••r^■  c<mtaiiied  in  the  hills  of  ladinir,  even  as  airainst  the 


carrK-r  s   own   m 


irliiicnce.      I    do   not    jierceive  a    necessary 
<'oi«iKMMion  lietween  the  clause  in  the  l»ills  of  ladinir  limitin<r 


W- 


3114 


TIIK  CONTKACTS  OF  CAUUIKKS.  [ClI.   XIII. 


m 


'I  ■ 


i 


liiihilltv  for  a  safe  delivfrv  of  tlu'  carj^o,  and  the  clause 
friviiijjj  to  tlu'  carrier  the  henelit  of  the  hisuraiiee,  not  that 
it  foUows  tiiat  lu'eause  the  f()rmer  eau  not  exonerate  itself 
from  lial>ility  for  neirlijrenre,  the  hitter  ehiuse  may  not  he 
held  valid.  To  irive  the  carrier  the  henelit  of  the  insurance 
it  must  he  liahle  to  the  shipper  for  the  loss.  Liahilily  must 
exist  as  a  pre-re(|uisite  to  a  claim  to  the  insurance.  The 
ajrreeinent  is  that  if  the  carrier  shall  lie  liahle  for  the  loss 
then  he  shall  have  tin-  hein'tit  of  the  insurance.  And  if  it 
he  coi'r«'ct  to  say  that  the  validity  of  the  stipulation  n-hi- 
ti\t'  to  insurance  is  not  di'pi'inh'nt  upon  the  validity  of  the 
clause  which  attempts  to  limit  liahility  for  the  property,  or 
in  othi-r  words  thai  the  I'tTcct  of  the  sti|)ulation  relatinjr  to 
insurance  i^  not  to  defeat  the  oI>li;j,ation  of  the  carrier  to 
indemnify  tiie  owiiei-  a<rain>t  loss  occasioned  liy  its  ncjili- 
ji('iic«'.  tii»-ii  it  would  >e«'m  that  tin'  Illinois  statute  does  not 
hear  upou  the  ri<.dit  of  the  carrier  to  contiact  with  the  ship- 
p<'r  for  tin*'  henelit  of  the  insurance.  That  statute  pidvides  : 
"  U'lieiicver  iiny  propeHy  is  iceeived  hy  a  common  carrier 
to  he  tr.iiispoiied  from  on<'  place  to  another  within  or  with- 
out this  State,  it  shall  not  he  lawful  for  such  carrier  to  limit 
his  <ommoii  law  lial'ility  -afcly  to  deliver  such  property  at 
the  place  to  which  the  -;imc  is  to  l>e  transported  hy  any 
-lipiilation  i>r  limitation  expressed  in  the  receipt  uivi-n  for 
>ucli  property." 

As  will  he  (»h-erved,  the  prohihition  here  is  ajrainst  any 
limilation  of  common  law  liahility  safely  to  deliv<-r  the 
property  :  and  this  doe-  not  iinoUc  the  riL:lit  to  stipulate 
f<tr  the  henetit  of  tin-  insurance  in  case  of  loss  and  liahility. 
'I'hcse  clauses  in  the  hills  of  ladinir  are  to  hi'  read  as  the  ap- 
plication to  them  of  Iciral  piineiple-  icipiiies,  and  so  r«'ad- 
inir  them,  tin- provisions  would  in  terms  he  that  the  carrier 
"  sh.all  not  l)e  liahle  *  *  *  f,,,.  |,,><^  ,,,.  dainaire  hy  lire, 
<'ollisioii  (»r  the  dangers  of  naviiiation  while  on  seas,  hays, 
harhors,  rivers,  lakes  or  canals,"  unless  such  loss  ordamai:e 
shall  he  occasioned  hy  the  nc<:Titrcnce  of  said  Anchor  IJne, 
its  a<rents  or  servants.      And.  "  in   case  of  anv  loss,  dctri- 


if 


^•H.  xni. 


«H.  XIII.] 


LXUKI'OUTKU  CAMCS. 


395 


B    I'lilUSC 

lot  tliat 
te   itself 

not  Im> 
isiiranrc 
ity  must 

tlu"  loss 

LlUl    if     it 

>ii   rcla- 

of  thr 

'i-tv,  or 


iiH'iit  or  <Iama<re  doiio  to  or  siistiiined  l)v  any  of  tlu> 
property  lu'rchy  receipted  for  (hninj;  such  transportation, 
wliereliy  any  lejjal  liability  or  respousihility  shall  or  niav  hi- 
ineurred,  *  *  *  the  carrier  so  liable  shall  have  the  full 
benetit  of  any  insurance  that  may  have  been  eifected  upon 
or  on  account  (jf  said  floods. " 

Admittinjj:  then  that  the  loss  of  the  cariro  resulted  re- 
motely from  the  ne^lijrence  of  the  carrier,  the  (|uestion 
recurs,  can  that  part  of  the  contract  which  jfives  to  the  car- 
rier the  benetit  of  the  insurance  be  enforced  as  a  valid 
aLncement  ?  In  the  altscncc  of  such  agreement,  on  pay- 
ment of  the  whole  loss  by  the  insurer,  the  insured  would 
hold  iheir  claim  aL^iinst  the  carrier  in  trust  for  the  insurer. 
And  if  the  aL'recment  be  valid,  1  think  it  follows  that  on 
payment  of  the  loss  l>y  the  carriei',  the  insured  would  hold 
their  claim  apiinst  the  insurer  in  trust  for  the  carrier;  and 
furtln-r,  with  this  agreement  in  fore*'  on  paynu'iit  of  the 
loss  by  the  insui'cr,  the  insuicd  would  have  no  riirlit  to  jjo 
.njriiinst  the  cai-ricr,  liecause  the  loss  would  lu  satistied  with 
moneys  to  which  the  carrier,  as  between  it  and  the  insured 
W(»uld  be  entitU'd.  It  is  settled  i»y  coutroUinii'  authoiity 
that  a  common  cari'icr  has  an  insural>le  interest  in  the  gooils 
he  eari'ics,  and  can  contract  for  the  benefit  of  insurance  ef- 
fected l»y  the  owner."  In  Sarmir  r.  Corn  J'Jjr/nnn/r  Inmir- 
(iin-c  ('iitii/xiii//,'"  it  was  held  that  a  common  carrier  Iteiiijj: 
ixiund  to  make  saf«'  delivery  of  jroods  at  the  plac«'  of  des- 
tination, such  oldipition  toircther  with  his  claim  for  advances 
and  fiu'i<:lit ,  uive  him  an  insurable  interest  to  the  cxti'ut  «»f 
the  fair  value  of  the  pro|icrty  insured.  Cominijr  then  di- 
ri'ctly  to  the  point  in  issue,  a  test  of  the  validity  of  this 
stipulation  would  seem  to  be,  could  the  i-arrier  I'ccovcr  for 
a  li>ss  liappcniniT  confessedly  throujih  his  nculiucnce  upon  a 
<-ontract  of  insurance,  insurinj;  updnst  "perils  of  the  sea?" 


'■'  \HII  .\:llt;i  V.  Mlll.S.c.  111-.  Cc...  •JSilllilf.  I!HI(^IS|;0:  Tlia-i'  v.W;i-:|l- 
iii;:t.iri  Mill.  III-.  <'()..  !•_'  \\:\\\i.  ."i!C>  (IS.VJ);  MfrcMiilili'  .Miit.  In-.  ('<».  v. 
Caii'li-'.  211  N.  V.  17;!  (IS.V.Ij;  -j  I'iUM.n-  uii  In-.  -Jiii). 

'";u;  .\.  Y.  i;.").")  i.ls(;7). 


3or) 


TIIK  roXTIJACTS  OF  CAKIMKIfS. 


[r„. 


xm. 


i-  ;: 


I 


I'poM  this  (|ii('stion  counsel  for  liltcllimt  lav  down  the  pro- 
posit  ion,  that  nc^ilijiciicc  of  a  carrit-r  oi*  shi|>  owner,  if  il 
can  he  insured  airainst  at  all.  must  l)e  made  the  sniijeel- 
matter  of  express  contract,  which  can  not  admit  of  a  rca- 
sonalde  dotiltt.  Formerly,  this  was  a  vexed  <|uesli<>n  in  the 
courts,  hut  it  is  now  fully  and  tii-ndy  sett  led  hyhoth  Knjilish 
and  American  dt'cisiuns,  that  a  loss  whose  proximate  caii-c 
is  one  of  the  enumerated  risks  in  the  policy,  is  charucalilf 
to    the   underwriters,  althouuh    the    remote   cause    mav    he 


traced  to  the  neirli;:ence  of  the  master  and  marmers." 

Ill  (rfuici'd/  Mii/ufi/  /iisiinniri'  ('ihiijkiiii/  r.  S/tfriniDi/,^-' 
it  was  held  that  damaircs  decreed  liy  a  coui't  of  admirality 
to  he  a  lien  on  the  vessel  insured.  I»y  reason  of  a  col- 
lision ))r(»duced  hy  the  ncL>lii:-cnce  of  those  who  navi<rate<l 
that  vessel,  can  not  l>e  recovered  under  a  policy  insurinii 
airainst  the  usual  perils  and  includinjr  harratrv.  'I"he  facts 
were  peculiar.  'Vlw  plaintiffs  in  the  action  were  the  owneis 
of  a  l)ri<r.  'rhrouj.di  the  neiiliiicnce  of  the  mastt-r  .and  marin- 
ers of  the  hriir.  another  vessel  was  injured.  In  proc(>e(|in<i> 
on  the  part  of  the  injured  vessel,  the  hriir  and  her  owners 
were  adjudged  liahle  f(»r  the  damajri's  ami  the  decree  pro- 
nounced the  collision  to  have  occurred  in  conseipience  of 
the  neirliirence.  On  payment  of  the  decree,  the  owners  of 
the  hrifT  sued  the  insurance  company  on  a  time  policy,  ;ind 
set  up  the  facts  expi'cssly  allejrinjr  the  nejrlilicnce  as  the 
reason  why  tln'V  had  paid  the  damaires,  and  il  was  held  they 
could  not  recover.  It  was,  therefore,  not  the  case  of  the  in- 
surers goin<r  hehind  the  cause  of  loss  :ind  defeiidinir.  hy 
sjiowing  this  cause  was  produe<'d  l>y  nejiliji'ence,  which  .Mr. 
tlustice  CruTissays  could  not  i)e  done,  hut  it  was  the  case  of 
the  insuri'd  himself  lioinir  hehind  the  c«»llision  and  showinu 
as  the  sole  reason  why  Ih'  h;id  paid  the  loss,  the  neLrliir<'iicc 
of  his  own  servants  and  airents. 

"  Putupsni  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cniiltfr.  :\  I'i't.  •.»_'■.'  '  Is;!(i.  ;  ( '.ilinnltia  In-.  <'i..  \ . 
LawrtMicc.  1(»  I't-t.  .*i(»7  (ls;t(l):  (icnfial  Mnt.  In«.  r<i.  v.  Slici  wo.hI.  II 
How.  Il.')l  (ls.")2):  Coiicjiinil  v.  Ni-w  l'.n;rl;intl  Marine  In-.  ('i>..  J  Mdi'. 
4',V2  (IS  II).  and  (a<ii's  cited  in  llie«e  di-ilsions. 

>'  11  ili.w.  :i.")i  (is.Vj). 


I'M.  xm. 


(n.  XIII.] 


r\i!i:i'()i;Tr,i)  casks. 


ay? 


Illf    \)V(). 

'<'!•,  if  il 
siiltjcci- 
)f  il  rcii- 

•II   ill  Die 

Kiiiiiish 

Ic  <'aii-.i' 

ir,ii(';il»lc 

niiiy    \)v 
II 

lI'DDll  ,^- 

iiii-iililv 

f     !l     V{)\- 

:ivi  "•!!)( '(I 
iiisiiriim 
"lie  filets 
'  owners 
1  niiiriii- 
I  ■('('(I  i  Ill's 
■  owners 
r«'e  |iro- 
llencc  (»f 
viicrs  of 
i<T,  iiini 
:is    tlie 
I'ld  f  liev 
'  the  in- 

iiiir.  l»\' 
icli  Mr. 
eiise  (if 
'liowiny 
rli<::eiiee 


1^.  <•...  \. 

Will  1(1,    II 

•J  M.lr. 


Ill    (.'oj)ff(iii(f  r.  AV/r    Kiifjhiiiil  Mnrliii-   /iisKnnii-i'   Coiti- 
ixnn/^'  SllAW,  ('.   J.,  ill   ii  very  exliiuistive  o|)inioii,  coiitiiiii- 
iiiir  il  leiiiTlliy  review  of  the  nut liorities,  hehl  thiit  "ii  vessel 
which  is  insured  on  n  voyniii-  out  siiid  lioiiie,  mid  which  dc- 
jiiirts  witii  o(lic«'rs  nnd   ii  crew  coiii|)eteiit    for  the   voyiiLje, 
<h)C's   not    Iteconie  uiisciiwortiiy   by  reiison  of  the   iniister's 
liecoiniii<:  incompetent,  iit  the  forci^jn  port,  to  coinniiind  llic 
vessel  ;    and   if    the  vessel  sails  from  such  port  under  liis 
4()mmand  iind  is  lost  on  the  liomcwnrd  p!issa<::e,  the  under- 
writers iire  not  dischiirjrctl,  iilthoujrh  the  loss  nisiy  have  heeii 
ciiused  Jiy  tlie  niiister's  inciipticity.     And  altlioujrh,  in  such 
<•ii.se  of  the  master's  inconipetency,    it    is  the  duty  of  tin- 
lujite  to  tiike  commiind  of  the  vessel,  and  althoujrh  he  ha.s  ii 
right  to  resort   to  all  lawful   means  to  estiihlish  himself  in 
the  eommaiul ;  yet  if  from  want  of  judgment   or  even  from 
culpable  iH'gligence,  he  omits  so  to  do,  and  the  vessel  s:iils 
under  the  master's  comniiind  and  is  stranded,   the  under- 
writers iire  not  disehargetl."      And  in  the  opinion  there  is 
this  enuiicitition  of  the    law   which   is  speciiilly  pertinent : 
"  It   is  very  clear  in  this  ciise  tliiit  the  immediate  cause  of 
the  loss  was  stranding  in  the  night  time,  which  is  one  of  the 
perils  insured  agiiinst  :  and  the  t'iise  supposed  is  thiit  this 
was  occasioned  l>y  the  default  of  the  niiite  in  not  iissuming 
the  command.     This  detault   must  consist  either  in  a  want 
of  judgment  in  perceiving  and  determining  thiit  the  master 
had  become  so  inciipacitated  iis  to  authorize  Jind  recpiire  him 
to  iiiterpo.se,   or  in  negligeiice  in    the  performance  of    hi.s 
duty,  when  the  case  occurred.     Such  a  case  may  occur  in 
every  voyage,  and  must  be  consideri'd  as  one  of  the  eontin- 
gencit's  incident  to  navigation.     It  may  often  present  (jues- 
tions  of  grejit  ditticulty,  in  iicting  on  which  mistakes  on  the 
])art  of  the  officer  second  in  command  may  occur.     Hut  we 
can  not  perceive  why  the  duty  of  the  mate  wa.s  not  of  a 
purely  ottieiul  and  professional   chanicter,  growing  out  of 
his  powers  and  the  relation  in  which  he  .stood  as  an  otHccr, 
and  not  dev(dvliig  on  him  a.s  the  sigeiit  of  the  owners  in  any 

'•■'2  Meto.  4:W  (ISIl). 


q^ r-»y.i  ..^MK.i^^ s. 


lii 


»t(i!p  - 


-'^'.   ^ 

ii 

it 

||j 

M 

II 


!    i 


.S!»8 


n^ 


i^ 


i  1 


s: 


THE  CONTUACTS  OF  CAIIUIKKH. 


[ 


CM.  XIII. 


otlior  >icnsc  tliiin  that  in  which  pih)ts  iiiid  all  other  otKcci-s 
and  mariners  are  their  airents.  Thev  are  veslod  with  cer- 
tain powers  to  he  exereisj-d  for  the  use  and  )>enefit  of  own- 
ers, freijrhti'rs,  underwriters  and  all  others  who  an'  directly 
or  remotely  int«'rest«'d  in  the  vt'ssci  and  voyajxe.  I  can  not 
distinjruish  the  nejriiirencc  of  the  unite  in  the  case  supposed 
from  his  failure  in  the  pei'forinance  of  any  otln-r  duty  as  a 
nautical  man.  Suppose  a  case  of  n  loss  by  strandinj;,  and 
it  could  he  satisfactorily  proved  that  if  in  a  particular 
<'mer^ency  sail  ha<l  been  made  or  taken  in,  if  an  aui'hor  had 
been  carried  out  or  the  vessel  put  on  another  tack,  tlu^  dis- 
aster mijrht  have  been  avoided  ;  it  would  indicate  a  i^iunlar 
mistake  of  judirment  or  nejilect  of  <luty  on  the  part  of  the 
commandin<r  otKeer  as  that  in  the  <"ase  supposed.  In  both 
cases  it  is  a  mistake  or  neirleet  of  his  pecidiaraml  appropri- 
ate <luty  as  an  otficer  and  seaman.  For  the  performance  of 
these  duties  we  are  <»f  oi)inion  that  the  owners,  as  betwi'cn 
themselves  and  the  underwriters,  are  not  responsil)le.  A 
contrary  doctrine  would  lead  to  (luesticuis  of  ;jfreat  ditKcnIty, 
inv(dvin<r  nunH'rous  (pjestions  (»f  fact  of  very  ditficult  pro<»f, 
as  to  the  skill  and  seamanship  of  all  the  nautical  measures 
takt'U  in  the  whole  conduct  of  the  voyajjfe.  Besides,  tln'se 
mistakes  of  ju(l<rment  and  instances  of  neiiliucnce  ai'c  inci- 
dent to  naviiration  and  constitute  a  part  of  the  perils  lluit. 
attend  it  :  and  they  can  no  more  l)e  restrained,  prevented  (U- 
iruai'dcd  airainst  by  the  owners  than  ity  the  underwriters. 
The  most  cautious  foresiifht  <'an  only  enaide  owners  to  pro- 
vide a  competent  crew  of  otHcers  and  seanu'u  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  voyaire.  What  reasons,  then,  are  there 
of  justice  oi' policy  :  what  considerations  <;rowinir  out  of  the 
nature  of  this  contract  or  the  relations  of  the  parties,  which 
should  prevent  the  owners  from  insurinjr  themselves  airainst 
this  i)eril?" 

Strandinjr  is  a  "  peril  of  the  sea."  In  the  case  at  bar 
the  strandiniT  of  tlui  vessel  was  tlx'  proxinnite  cause  of  the 
loss.  The  remote  cause  was  the  ne;jfli<rence  of  the  master 
and  nuiriiu'rs  in  navijiatiiifr  the  vessel.     'J'he  law  beinj^  as 


ni.  xiir. 


(-11.  XIII. 


rNUKI'Oin'KO  CASKS. 


89{> 


r  otKccrs 
villi  ecr- 
of  ouii- 
(lii'i'ctly 
*'aii  not 
iippost'd 
nty  as  h 
ill.!,',  and 
M-ticular 
lior  liiid 
the  dis- 
i  i^iinilar 
•t  of  the 
In  Itotli 
ppropri- 
iiancc  of 
Ix'twccn 
il)i(«.     A 
itKciilly, 
It  proof, 
iirasiircs 
i's,  tlicsr 
.•ii'c  iiici- 
lils  that 
(Mitcd  or 
■writers. 
;  to  pro- 
he  eoin- 
•e  there 
<»f  the 
s  which 
iiirainst. 

at    l);ir 

of  the 

master 

eiuij^  as 


stated,  it  follows  that  if  the  ease  were  tliat  of  liisuran»-e  in 
favor  of  the  earric'r  against  perils  of  the  sea,  the  insurer 
••ouid  not  <;o  behind  the  proxiniat*-  cause  (tf  the  loss  and  de- 
feat a  recovery  Ity  showinir  the  neixIiL'ence  of  the  master  and 
crew  of  the  vessel.      We  have  then  this  state  of  the  case: 
'I'he  carrier  made  itself  lialde  for  the  loss  of  the  cariro  l>v  a 
peril  of   the  sea,  if  n<'<;li<^ence  co-operated  in  causin<r  th(> 
loss.     The  owners  of  the  carjro  contracted  with  the  carrier 
that   if   loss  should  occur  for  which  liability  arose,  the  car- 
rier should  have  the  l»'nelit  of  any  insuranc*'  on  tln' prop- 
erty.    The  shippers  then  contracted  for  insurance  airainst 
the  usual   perils.     'I'here  was  ii  loss  for  which  the  carrier 
was  primarily  liable  to  the  shippers.     Tlu-  proximate  cause 
of  the  loss  wiis  ji  peril  of  the  scii.      It  was  a  loss,  therefore, 
which  the  carrier  could  directly  insure  ajraiiist,  and  the  fact 
that  its  remote  cause  was  nejjlijrcnce  would  not   relieve  the 
insurer.     Why  could  not  the  carrier  secure  by  the  indirect 
way  of  a  coutra«'t  with  the  shippers,  in  case  of  its  lial>ility 
f(U'  a  loss,  the  benefit  of  their  insurance,  if  it   could  by  di- 
rect   contract    with   the    insurer    have   obtaine<l     indemnity 
against  loss  caused  proximately  Ity  a  |>eril  insured  airainsl, 
but  n'lnotely  by  its  own  nciiliircnce?     If  it  bo  said  that  the 
rijrhts  of  the  insurance  company  ouirhl  not  to  be  affected  by 
a  contract   between  the  shipper  and  the  carrier,  I  think  it 
may  be  answered  that  the  c<»mpany  put  itself  in  privity  with 
such  c(Uitract   by  its  conti'ficl  of  insurance  while  the  prop- 
erty was  in  transit,  and  that  it  d«'all  with  the  insured  prop- 
erty, sul»ject  to  the  terms  of  the  bills  of  ladinir,  which  <rave 
to  the  carrier  the  benelit  «»f  the  insurance  in  case  of  loss  for 
which  the  carrier  slutuld  be  lial»l«'.     Th<'  case  does  not  show 
that  ;iny  fraud  was  intended  by  tin-  carrier  in   makini;  this 
stipulation   with  the  shippers.     The  airent  of  the  insui'ancc 
company  was  also  the  anciit  of   the  «'arrier,  and  the  same 
perscui  issued  the  certificate  of  insuran<'c  and  made  the  con- 
tracts of  shipment  with  the  shippers.     And  in  the  li,<rht  of 
all  the  facts  and  th«'  lc<:al  principles  which  I   have  endeav- 
ored to  state,  I  can  not  brinir  my  mind  to  any  other  conclu- 


UK) 


Till".  (oN'n.'XCTS  Ol'  CAKIMKKS. 


[cil.  XIII. 


sidii  tliiin  tliiit  this  NViis  ii  lawful  :iii*l  viilid  contiiK-t .  If  tlii> 
hv  so,  llit'ii  upon  r('<-('iviii'f  pavuirnt  for  tin  ir  hoses  from 
the  iiisurtT,  tilt'  riLiht  (»f  the  iiisjin-d  to  piorccd  aiiaiiisl  ijic 
«'arrirr  was  (Ictt'niiiiitMl,  and  no  such  i-i<rht  rcniaiiicd  to  which 
the  iiisuiiT  could  he  siihi  oirated,  hecau^e  iiecessaiil  v  lh»  in- 
surer must  take  the  riirhts  of  the  owners  <»f  tin'  carpi  suli 
ject  t()  all  a;i;ret'ments  and  e<|uities  hetween  the  insuird  and 
the  carriei'.'* 

In  the  case  last  <ited  the  Court  <tf  Appeals  of  New  York 
held  that  a  eoimnon  ea!  ■  ier  may  l»y  contract  with  tln'  own«!rs 
secure  to  himself  in  c;i-e  of  dama;.r<'  or  loss  t(t  the  <ri>ods 
for  which  the  carrier  would  l»e  liahle  the  hcnelit  of  any  in- 
suranee  to  ho  offectt'd  l»y  the  owin^r,  and  that  this  ahandon- 
niont  to  tin*  insurer  a<;ainst  marine  perils  of  goods  damajred 
tluring  their  transportation  under  nich  a  contract,  ami  pay- 
ment of  the  loss,  does  not  give  to  the  insui'cr  any  right  of 
action  against  the  carrier. 

This  case  was  much  <riti<'i/.ed  upon  the  argument ,  hut  I 
do  not  see  why  upon  principh*  it  is  not  soimd.  It  is  true 
that  the  case  did  not  present  tlu'  <|ement  of  negligence  on 
the  part  of  the  carriei',  and  the  court  alludes  to  this  fa<t  in 
the  opinion  :  hut  I  think  oidy  for  the  purpose  of  calling  at- 
tention to  the  i)oint  that  not  even  i)rimarv  liaitility  of  the 
<arrier  for  the  I<»ss  of  the  goods  was  in  that  cast  shown. 
Jlut  a  careful  reading  of  the  opinion,  1  think,  shows  that 
even  though  stich  liahility  were  estalilislied  hy  direct  proof 
of  nogligt'iice,  it  was  the  view  (tf  the  court  that  the  con- 
tract was  valid  ;  for  after  alluding  to  the  al»>rnce  of  the  ele- 
ment of  negligence  the  opinion  proceeds:  "Hut  it  is 
enough  that  the  plaintiffs  took  tin'  rights  of  the  owner  of 
the  goods  subject  to  all  agreements  and  e«|uities  hetween 
the  insured  and  defendants,  and  that  the  contract  between 
them  being  valid  protects  the  latter  against  a  recovery  by 
the  plaintiff." 

In  conclusion  I  must  hold  that  the  provision  in  the  bills  of 
lading  giving  to  the  carrier  the  benetit  of  insurance  on  the 

"Mercantile  Mat.  Iiis.  Co.  v.  (.'alcbs.  Jo  N.  \'.  17;}  (ksr>!)). 


(11.    XIII.] 


IMJKI'OUTKI)  (  ASKH. 


401 


|)i«)|)crt y  Wiis  VMliil.  jiihI  tli:il  no  riirlit  nf  >ul)r(»i:;i1i()ii  jn- 
<'ni('(M<i  lilicllMiit .  iiifc  I  iic  iiisiirccl  (111  |i;i\  iiiciil  to  iIm-iii  (»f 
llif  iiisuriint'c  IiikI  no  i-iiilil  of  .ictioii  iiixii'mst  llic  <  ai-ricr. 

I'lMiii  I  lie  .',/•.•'/  |ir(i|it:>illliiii  (if  tin-  Ki/lliiliti:<  in  llic  f(ir(';ji>lii;j  ca-o,  sec 
,(»^■.  ss  -'s.  -j:!.  ;!i>.  :ti.  ;t-j.  ;i;!.  ;ti.  :!.-,.:•>(•,.  :i7.  :?^.:i',i.  ki.  ii.  i-j.  i;t,  u.  i:,.  k;, 
•17.  |M.  I'.t,  :>().  ."ii,  :>■>.  ."•:(. .'ii.  :,:>.  .•>().  .■!;,  .-.s.  ,v.i.  m,  t;\,  v,>,  (;;i,  di.  (i."i,  oc,  'i7, 
lit-.',  -Ji  I. 

Ilinn  III!'  am, ml  li|n|i(i«ll|(ili  iif   lllc  .-  ill'lliiis.  see  ((H^^  ^§  US.  SS.  101. 
I'lMiii  ilif  I  hi  II I  iwul  hiiir/h  |)ri>|iiisiii.iti<  I'f  llic  .iijIlnhiiH,  -cc  aiiti\  j  TJI. 
I'lMHi  tlic//yV/i.  xi/lh  ami  kii-iiiIIi  |ini|ii><itii>ii.>i  (if  llic  sijlliihnu,  sec  <(i(<i',  § 

ijia. 


•.»,*i(!. —COMMON    (AlUMKIfS   RY    WATKIi  —  KXCKITIOXS   OF 

••I'KiMi-s  OK    Tin:  SKA'— ••  i,i:ak.\<;k.   hkkaka(;k   ok 

JUST"— NKOI.IOKNCK  — lUUDKN  OK   ri:i>OF. 


KiCIIMJDS    V.    IIWSKN, 

I'hitiil  Sl<itri<  <'ir<>iil  CiiUfl,  lUslrift  nf  Mii:<s(irhiisi'tt.i,  XnfimliPr.M^l',). 
Ui'fiiii'  Mr.  .In-iifi'  Ci.iriditn. 

1.  (';iiri('l-  >•(  LriHul-   liy  wiilcl'.  II'   ;i-    liiiirli   iii^iirris  of  llir   j;ipi>iU  llii'V 

lr;lll>iliiirl  ;i>  ciilillii'iii  rani'i'-  liy  l:illcl.  :llil  aic  -llhji  i  i  ti>  llic  samo 
lialiiKilifi. 

2.  A  ciiiTicr  i-*  mil  irlfiwcil  linni  lialiililN  lor  il:im:i'^i' In  a  caiuci  liy  water 

wIhti'  !i  'piiiMis  tiial  llic  ciHivtrin  liiiii  of  ilic  slii|i  rciKU-rcil  her  iin- 
lii  In  l!'aii  ">it  siicli  a  cai-'iii  at  llial  -ca-mi  nf  llic  yc;'r.  anil  that  Ikt 
ccilint;-  W'  rr  in^iiHii  icni.  even  llniiiiiii  the  liill  of  lailiiij;  cx|irc--ly 
(•\ci'|i|'<  il |iciil.  ui'  tlic  seas."" 

:t.  'I'lic  cxiciiiiiiM  ill  a  liill  I'l  laijiii!,' cf  lialiilily  fm- •■  jcalva'^c  lircaka^c 
ami  ni-l."  will  c\cii-<'  rii-l  caii>('(l  liy  liic  >W('al  ur  nioi^liirc  nf  llic 
place  w  here  llic  <;ihiiI«  are  slowid.  Unl  i!  w  ill  iinl  cnciisc  i  ii-t  aris- 
iiis;  fidin  llic  enlraiice  of  w;iier  llinmirli  an  iii~iiHicicnt  ccilin;;  in 
llie  siii|i. 

I.  'I'lie  linnlen  cf  prnof  i-  n|iun  llic  canici  u<  slmw  llial  llic  Ic--  was 
wiiliin  (iiic  nf  llic  cxcciiicil  peril-. 


Mr.  .Iiislicc  ('i.ni'oKi) : 

Carriers  of  ninnis,  if  ('oiiiinon  cariiirs,  conlracl    for  llic 
safe  custody,  due  liausport  and  i'ii.:iit  (Iflivcry  of  tlu-  .•-anio, 
2U 


4(»2 


Till-:  iONTIIACTS  Ol'  (   \i:i!li;itH.  [(  II.   Mil. 


iiikI  ill  till' iilist'iHc  of  .'iiiy  lr;:i»lMli\»'  rr^iiilnlioii  prcscriliinjj; 
a  (li!Vri'fiil  mil',  jnf  insurers  of  ilic  piuds,  ;iii<l  nir  liiililc  :il 
iill  t'Vt'iii>  ;m»l  rur<\(i\  ln>>  ur  ti!iiii!i;j:t',  iiiilr>>  it  liii|i|Mii(  d 
li\  l!ic  ;i(  I  of  (iod,  or  ilic  |)iilili('  cii'.'ii.v,  or  llic  r.'uill  of  llic 
slii|)|)(  r,  or  liy  >oiin'  oilier  (■!iu>r  or  iircidtnl  «  Niirc-.-ly 
cxci'ph'd  ill  tli«>  l)ili  id'  hiding'.  :iiid  witlioiil  iiiiy  I'iiiiil  oi- 
iit'L;lip'iit'c  Oil  llic  |»;iil  (d'  llic  tiinii  I'.  '  Slii|t  o\\  in  is  :ind 
liiiislcrs  (d'  lilt'  >lii|is  tiii|ilo\  cil  !is  i;:ciu'l:il  >iii|i--  ill  tlu-  cojol- 
iii!^'  or  roici;iii  tradf,  or  in  i;fiiti;d  trt'ii:iiliii,u'  lnL-^iiicxs.  uvo 
dt'tiiii'd  foiiiiiion  carriers  liy  unter,  :!iid  a>  -ik  li  are  as  iniicli 
insurers  of  llie  uctods  ihey  lrnii>|i(ii(  as  rdiiniion  earrieis  ),\ 
land,  iinli'ss  il  is  oilierw  ise  [tiovided  in  ilie  i<iil  (d'  ladiiij:.''' 
Sueli  il  eariiei's  lirsl  duly,  and  one  iMiplied  \>y  law  .  is  lo 
[)rovid('  a  seaworthy  vessel,  tijilil  and  slauneii,  and  well  Ciir- 
iiislie(l  with  suitaide  lai-kle,  sails  or  oilier  motive  power,  as 
the  ea.-e  niav  Ite,  and  t'urnilure  iieeessar\  lor  tin-  vovaj^c. 
Ve.s!!H'ls  so  einployetl  must  also  lie  proxided  with  a  crew  ade- 
(|uate  in  niinilier and  sutli<-ieiit  :iiid  eoiii|)elenl  to  pert'oiin  the 
n'(piired  duty,  and  with  a  eoiiipetinl  and  skiit'nl  master  (d" 
sound  judiiiueiit  and  discretion.  <  )w  iicis  in  siii  h  cases  mu>t 
see  to  it  that  ihe  inasttr  i>  well  i|ii;diticd  I'or  his  situation, 
as  tliev  are  tlirectiy  ropoiisihie  for  his  iie<j:li<i'eiices  and  uii- 
skili'ulness  in  the  pi'ii'orinniice  of  his  duly.  In  the  .'diseiice 
of  aiiv  s|)ecial  agreement  to  the  conliary.  t he  diityid'  the 
master  extends  to  all  that  relates  to  the  ladini:'  and  stowaiie 
of  the  eai\::()  ii>*  well  a>  to  the  transportation  and  delivery  of 
the  jroods,  and  for  the  pei  formaiiee  of  all  those  dulii's  the 
ship  is  liahle  as  well  as  tlu'  master  ami  owners.'' 

(Joods  of  irreat  value,  <onsistin,i:-  of  sheet  iron  in  liundles, 
were  shipi»e(l  l»y  the  liliellants  in  the  steamer  Sxciid,  hoiiiid 
on  a  vovajic  from  the  jiort  of  Liverpool  to  the  poit  of  I'os- 
toii.  liy  tlu-  manifest  it  appears  that  the  steamer  was  an 
iron  |U'o|)eller,  carryintr  jz«'iieral  cariio  for  freight,  ami  that 


w  Tlif  Nia^'iiiii  V.  Corilcs.  -Jl  How.  7  O"'"''^)- 
•"Stun  on  I'.iiiinu'iits  (7lli  ed.)  ."iiil. 

'•  iOlliim  V.  KosM'U.  10  .Johns,  I  (,lM:i; ;    Kiny  v.  .^lit  iln  nl.  :i  bU>vy,  ;M1I 
(IS  It;. 


(11.  sill. 


1 


r\llKI'<H!TKI»  CASKS. 


•10.1 


■II  fur- 


tlic    >lli|»IMt'll(     licjolll'l'd     |o   VMlidll^    |H'|M.||^,   ullirh    i)['    it^rlf 

is  siilliriciit  to  >lii>\v  lliMi  ilic  mii^tff  iiinl  dwiicr-  ui  ic  rmii- 
iiKHi  (Mrrifi's  ill  tjic  .-.Iricioi  x-hnc.  Sutliiicni  mI-o  iipiicars 
to  show  I  li:il  lltr  l:(i(ii|>  u  Inn  «.|ii|»|ic(l  wni'  in  j^oml  order 
1111(1  roiKJitioii,  :ill(l  lli.'il  till'  covciiiiiit  of  the  liiJI  of  linliim' 
is  tliMt  iIk'V  >1i;iII  lie  (|r|i\(  ;•(•([  ill  like  nood  order  and  r.mdi- 
tioii.  <  )iu'  llioii^aiid  iiiiiidlfs  (d"  (In-  sjiipniciil ,  >ln\\cd  in 
till"  forward  pari  oi'  llir  afl  lower  hold,  were  hadiv  wet  with 
>mII  waler  to  >iie|i  .Mil  e\teni  that  when  the  iimidle>  were 
hoisted  Dili  to  lie  delivered,  (he  water  dripped  out  td'  the 
siiiiic  mid  appeared  iiiinldy  witii  nist.  I  )aiiiai:es  are  elaiincd 
hy  the  lihellanls.  in  the  lihel  as  aineiided,  foi'  hieaeli  of  the 
eoiilrai't  to  deliver  (h*'  ptods  in  the  condition  spt'cilied  in 
the  Itill  of  l:idiii,u'  in  the  sinii  of  four  thousand  dollars,  and 
the  evith'iiee  sliows  (li.il  t lie  t;(»()ds  shipped  were  injured  in 
the  nianiHT  chai'iicd  to  :in  ainoiinl  even  ureatci'  than  that 
ailciit'd  in  the  lili«'l. 

("oiMpcnsation  for  the  injury  is  elainied  liy  the  lilicllanls 
upon  llii'  foliowinir  lirounds : — 1.  Ueeaiis*'  thf  I'vidcncc 
proves  t(»  a  deniolistl'Mtion  tliat  the  troods  were  shipped  ill  i>:ood 
onh-raiid  eoiidilion,  and  that  the  respondents  liave  faih-d  to 
show  that  lilt'  injuries  to  (he  i:oods  i-esuitcd  from  the  cxecpti'd 
perils,  or  any  (d'  lliein,  or  from  the  fault  of  Ihe  shipper.  2. 
IJeeanse  the  steaniei- was  iiiiseaworth,  in  thill  she  was  not  of 
ii  I'onstnution  snitahle  to  carry  such  a  earuo  on  such  ii  voy- 
age at  ihiil  se.  ^on  of  theyear.  'A.  Because  the  ceiliiiudf  tiu* 
steamer  was  iioi  of  a  suital>h' character  nor  lit  to  protect  such 
carji'o  from  salt  wateron  the  deseriix'd  voyaiic  1.  That  the^ 
Ud(»(ls  injured  were  not  properly  stowed  or  (hmnaued  for 
their  protection  auaiiist    injuries  of  the  kind  on  such  a  voy- 


'i'wo  points  are  not  controverted  in  arjiumeiit  hy  the  re- 
spondents : —  1.  'I'iiat  tlie  ijfoods  were  in  irood  order  and 
condition  when  shipped.  2.  That  the  (pmntity  mentioned 
in  the  liltel  was  injured  in  tiie  ccturse  of  the  voya<:e,  and  that 
it  was  not    in  liootl  onh'r  and  condition  wiieii  delivered. 

Conceded  or  not,  the  evidence  to  the  effect  is  satisfactory 


•yyti.!  iM  ■  tfm  1  iiwxw'r^ 


404 


TIM",  (ONTI.'AC'TS  Ol"  C MMMKI.'S. 


I 
1 


[cm.    XIII. 


r 


•'-» 


l;^ 


|il|il 


and  cniK'liisivc,  hut  tlic  rcsiioiKlciits  cxitlicilly  deny  every 
olliev  proposition  siihniilted  Ity  the  Iil)ellants,  and  insist  as 
follows  :  — I .  That  the  hurden  of  pi'oof  is  upon  the  lilx'llants 
to  prove  that  the  injury  to  the  •.•"oods  did  not  I'esiilt  from  the 
<'xeepl<'d  perils,  'J.  'I'hat  the  st«'anier  was  in  all  respects 
seaworthy,  and  of  snitahle  eonstrnetion  and  e<niipnient  to 
transport  such  a  eariio  on  sneii  a  \()yaiL.''e  at  that  season  of 
the  veai".  .').  That  the  et'ilin^' (d"  the  ship  was  snllieient ,  and 
(hat  the  noods  were  properly  stowed  and  dnnnai^ed. 

Hearing' was  had  in  t  he  I  )isti-iet  Court,  and  the  District 
Court  entered  a  decree  (iisniissinjr  the  lihel,  from  whieli  de- 
cree the  lil)ellants  appi'aled  to  this  coui't.  Since  the  a[)peal 
was  entered  here  more  than  sixty  witnesses  have  been  ex- 
amined l)V  the  pirties,  which  renders  it  necessary  to  review 
nil  the  tindiiiirs  ,)f  the  court  helow,  as  well  as  the  Iciral  ])rin- 
<'iples  a|)plie(|  in  disposinu"  of  the  case. 

Due  shipment  of  the  iroods  is  not  denie(|,  nor  is  it  c(uilro- 
verted  that  the  steamer  sailcil  from  Liverpool,  March  '2i, 
1S7.'{,  and  that  she  ai-rived  at  Boston,  her  port  of  destina- 
tion, April  14,  in  the  same  yar.  Certain  exceptions  are 
<'outained  in  the  hill  of  lading'.  At  the  time  of  the  voyaire 
the  steanu'r  was  comparatively  a  new  vessel,  it  appearintr 
that  she  was  huilf  in  ( )ctol)er  of  the  previous  ye;ir.  Com- 
petent ex|)ert  witnesses  in  urcat  numliers  descrilie  the  con- 
struction of  the  steanu'r  under  deck  as  l(»w-waiste(l  foiuard 
of  the  poop,  and  expre-s  the  opinion  that  she  was  milit  to 
m:d<e  such  a  \ii\,ml!'''  duriuL:'  the  winter  moulh>.  They  were 
asked  to  i:ive  the  rea-ous  lor  thai  conclu-iou.  and  an>wcred 
to  t  he  effci't  that  in  such  a  const  I'uction  a^  t  liat  docrilied  the 
teudencv  in  roui:h  weather  would  he  to  till  the\\ai>t  with 
w.atei'.  and  to  cans  ■  thcv<'s>cl  to  strain  and  mil  deep  and 
h(-avv.  \\'hcn  asked  what  elTcct  the  strainiui;-  of  the  vessel 
would  h.'ive  upon  her  ceiliuu' in  the  lowci-  hold,  the  answer 
was  that  if  the  vessel  lahoi'cd  heavily  it  would  cause  her  to 
hlow,  that  the  deeper  tin-  ship  rolls  the  hii:he.  she  will  hlow 
the  water  in  her  hilire,  jjarticularly  if  her  ceilini:  is  not  v,:itei- 
tii:ht.      Sheet-iron,  all  ati'ree,  is  ijuitc  su^ccptihlc   to  damaLTc 


cir.  Mil.] 


tM;i:r(>i;Ti'.i>  'asks. 


jiff) 


from  l>«'ii)<:-  wet,  .-Mid   -oiiic  nl'  ilu-  rx|)<'il    wiinoso  i(>iif\- 
tlmt  a  (hop  <>r  >(';i-\v;ilcr  will  i|:iiii!iL;<'  a  sheet  ol'  (he  iiMiiiiiKJ 
ihal    it   udiild   lake  vciT  liltle  watei'  lo  lio   t  lin»iii;ii   ;i  wji.ile 
pafkaiic  of  siicli  mcreliaiidise.      A|iarl  from  the  eoii.Mniclion 
of  llie  ^Icamcr.  inciiKliiii:-  her  eeiliim-,  no  ;ittem|i|  is  mnde  to 
show   that    >he   \va>   U!i<i'a\vort liy.      Hcvoiid  doiil)t    >lie    was 
coniparaliveiy  new,  and  w.is  -tauiich  and  stronir.      Xor  is  it 
preleniled    tlial    the  d;imai;-e    to    t  he  cariio  I'esiilted  from  anv 
defect^    in    tlie  hull    (d"   tlie\f-<el    oi-  in    lier  e;|uipment  <.  be- 
yond what  was  endiraeed  in  the  eliafir*'  that  her  construction 
in  the  particidars  mentioned  exposed  the  vessel   to  umisnal 
strain   in   liad  weather,  and  tended  to  make  her  roll   unusu- 
ally deep  and   heavy.      .Vriiument    to  >how    that   the  \c'ssel 
when  she  rolls  deep  ;ind   heavy  is   more  likely  to  hlow  and 
e.vpose  earii'o  stowed   in   her  aft    lowei-hold  to  wet.  is  (piite 
inuH'cessary,  as  (he  conclusion  accords  with  all  e.\i.«  lieiice, 
and   is  fully  e>taldishe(|  in  this  c:is»'   l»y  the  evitlenci',  unh'ss 
the  ceiling;"  of  the  >hip  is  water  tiirht.     ()wners  of  vessels 
of  >uch  a  construction,  even  though  they  are  seaworthy  in 
the  trein'ral   sen>e,  ure  l»ounil  to  furnish  such  appliances  for 
(he  protection  (d"  the  caiii'o  so  s(owe<l  as  will  protect  it  from 
injury  arising  fiom  'he  ordinary  perils  of  naviiration.      Dam- 
aL'c  to  eari:«t  occasione(l  liy  salt  water  does  not   come  within 
(he  excepted  perils,  when  l»y  reason  of  tlu'  })lace  in  which  it 
is  stowed  it    is  exceptionally  lialile  to  >uch  injury  in  severe 
weather.'"     Shipowners,   liy  >uch  a  hill  of  ladini:',  contract 
fiU'  safe  cu4ody.  due  transport   and  riiihi   delivery  of  the 
j^oods  in   like  uooil  older  ami  c(»ndition  ;is  when  thev  were 
>hippei|  :  and  it  i>  universally  admitted  that  (he  contract  im- 
plies that    the  >hip  is  reasonably  lit    and  siiitahle  f(.r  the  ser- 
vice which  t  he  owiiei' enti'ail'e-  to   perform;  that    she  is  and 
shall    continue    to    he    in    a    con<lition    In    eiicomilcr   what- 
ever peril-  of  the  'CM  !i  >hip  of  the  knid  laden  in   that  way 
mav   lie  fajriv  e\p(  cted    iu    encounter   in    the  contemplated 
vovane.      Safe  cii-lody  is  a    pait    (d'  the  contract,  and   if  in 
con-eipience  (d'  the  peculiar  cojisi ruction  of  the  ship,  further 

'^  'I'Im'  (»iii,c||<ln.  :!s  I,.  T.      N.  S.  I  l.'il. 


fi-if^-'iatiLUJ." 


Km; 


Tin:  CoNTItACTS  (»!•'  CAIilMKlIS.  [cil.   Mil. 


'i  |i- 


;i|»iili:mc('^  iii'c  lu'ccssarv  to  proti'd  tlu'  cMi'iict  iVoin  iiijiirv  l»v 
(M-(liii;ii'v  pci'ils  not  cxfcptcd  in  the  liill  of  liidiiiii',  tlic  duty 
of  (he  owMcris  to  furnisli  :ill  su -li  ;  .•iiid  if  lie  f:iils  to  dit 
so,  iic  is  ivspoiisil)li>  for  the  coiisctiiiciiccs.'''  Kxplicit  »'\- 
ct'plioiis  luiiy  excuse  imperfections  of  const  ruction  or  i'ep;iirs. 
l»ul  in  tlie  al)sence  of  express  words  to  the  contrary,  a  l)ill 
of  iadini:'  in  tiie  usual  form  implies  .1  uarianty  of  seaworthi- 
ness when  the  voyaii'e  hcijins,  and  ail  the  exceptions  in  il 
must,  unless  dlherwise  expressed,  he  taken  to  refer  to  a 
jH'riod  sul)se(|uent  loth*'  ssdlintidf  the  >hip  w  ith  t  he  cariro 
on  ixiard.  As  foi-  example;  \\'heal  was  shipped  at  New 
Y(uk  for  Scotland,  under  a  hill  of  ladin;:' exiM-ptini:-  peril-  of 
the  seas,  how(>ver  caused.  |)urini!"  the  xnyaiic  the  wheat 
was  damaued  hy  sea-waler.  In  an  action  l»y  the  lioldi-rs  <d' 
the  hill  of  ladinu'  ai;ains|  the  nwners  of  the  ship,  the  jui'y 
liavinu'  found  that  the  wMler  oh  ined  access  (o  the  (ari:()  in 
con-^eijiicnce  of  one  of  the  poij  iieini;  in-ullicienll\  fastened, 
the  suliordinale  court  entered  a  \frdiil  foi'lhe  shipowners, 
upon  the  irround  that  the  loss  was  co\i're(|  hy  the  exception 
in  the  hill  of  ladini:'.  l>ut  the  House  of  I^ords,  on  appeal, 
reverx'd  the  judi^menl,  and  held  thai  as  in  (ir<ler  to  hrini: 
tlu' lo>s  within  the  exceptions  it  nni>l  Ix'  found  that  tlic>hip 
sailed  from  the  port  in  a  >caworthy  stale,  ;i  new  trial  mii>l  he 
had.  it  not  appcarinji' thai  the  fact  had  Iicimi  foiniil  hy  the 
jury.-'" 

'I'wo  defects  an>  suuiicsled  in  the  >teamer.  holh  of  which 
if  they  he  defects,  existed  at  the  time  the  >liip  sailed  :  — 
1.  'Ihat  the  c(mstruction  of  the  ship,  as  already  explained, 
remh'red  iier  unfit  to  ti-ansporl  such  a  cariid  on  such  a  voy- 
aii'e  at  that  season  of  the  Mar.  '2.  Thai  the  ceiliiiL'"  of  the 
ship.  Ml  view  of  hi  r  pccidiar  con>lru<  lion,  was  nol  suliicicnl 
to  pr<t(ccl  such  c.ir^o  from  damaiji'e  l»y  sail  water  in  >nih  a 
voyaii'e  durintr  the  winter  months  of  ihe  year,  when  roULih 
weather  may  reasonalily  he  expected. 


'"'riic  Manilhnii.  |ol,.  T.    \.  S.  i  IC!. 

-' SiiM'l  V.  SiMif  l.iiH'  SiiMin.  (  11..  :t7  I..  T.  (  \ .  s. )  :!;t;! :  I.mhi  v.  Mill-. 
.')  Ka-l.  I-Js  (isoi). 


I.    XIII. 


<ir.  XIII 


■] 


rNI!KI'i»l!Ti;i)  CASKS. 


107 


II ry  l»v 

•  '  (Inly 

to    <|() 

it  «'.\- 
|i;iirs. 
M  l>ill 
■  irllii- 
iii    it 

•  to    II 
<';il"i:(( 

riU  of 

\s  Im'mI 

\ry<  of 

II'  jury 

iri:<»   ill 

l<'IIC(|, 

u  iicrs, 
•f|i(ioii 
i|>l)f:il, 
)  liriii;:- 
lie  >lii|» 
(list  he 
l>V  the 


I{olli:ll  went  her,  m-  :\\\  cNiicricii.T  sli()\v>,  iiiMV  lif    cxiu'cIimI 
on  siicli  :i  voyjip'  in  tlic  winter  ;mi|  early  -.iM-iiiir  nioiitlis  of 
llic  year,  Inil  tlie  respoiulciits  deny  that  tlie  eoiisirnetion  of 
I  lie  steamer  rendered  lier  unlit    to  transport    siieli   iioods  on 
such  a  voya-^e.  and  insist  that  her  erilin;.'  \va«i  nro|terl\-  eon- 
.''Inielcd  and   >uilieient   to  proid    such  cari>-o   in   th<'  phic- 
where  it  was  stowed  from   damage   liy  ^alt    water,  and   fi-oin 
evel-y  peril  witliin  the  'onti'act  i,[  [Iw  ],\\\  >>[   ladiii'/.     ^^■hen 
l)uill  the  sleaiiier  was  ceiled  with  a    pei'insnenl    ceiiiiiLr  up  to 
her  deck.      It    is  eiaiined    hyihe  respondent-  tha'.   she  had 
<lurin_u"  the  Noyaiic   in  additi(tn  to  that,  a   teni|)or' -v- eeilinir 
up  to  the  turn   of  I'le   iiilirc,  Init    tiie  evidence  lulvcn    a-<  a 
whole  does   not  >u-«tain  that  thciu-y  of  fact.     Vavw  the  mas- 
ter  leslitie^   tint    ••  'he   was   ceiled    all    the    way   up    to    the 
deck,'"  hut  he  say>  not  hini:' alto  jI    any  >nch  additional   teni- 
jiorary  ceilinif  as  that    sup|to-ed   I'y  the   re-poiidcnts.      Sur- 
veyors   examined    the   steamer   in    New    ^'ork,   and   one   of 
them  sj)eak-i  cd"   the  \c-.-el  ;i-i  ceiled  to   the   (h-ck,  I)wl    inascs 
no  mention  of  any   temporary  eeiliu'i'  (»f  any  kiinl.      Proof 
that  the  steamer  had    no  >uch  cciliiiL;'  i>  nlso  derived   fnun 
the  stalenu'nt    id"  the  con--ii:nee,  w  ho   testilies  that    he  went 
<|owii  into  her  hold  after  -he  wa-  di>charii'ed,  and   he  statcvs 
tliiit    she    was  ceiled    frcuu   the    keel-on    entirely    up  to    the 
<leck.      Nor  doe-  he  -ay  m  word  about   anv  additional  ceil- 
iii'i.      Ships  carryini:'  irrain  frei|Uently  ha\('  what  is  called  a 
<_^rain  ci-ilinu'  in  iiddition  to  the  ordinary  permanent   ccilin<;, 
which  iisuidly  extends  onl\  to  the  upper  turn  of  the  hiliro. 
I'nliki'  that   a  irraiu  ceiliiiir  is  a  t»'mpor:iry  appliance   huiit 
up  as  dunniiii'c  to  keep  tin'  Ln'ain   removed    from  the  per- 
manent ccilinu:.     Suppml  to  the  iheiu'v  (d"  the  respondeids 
that  the  steamer  had  such  temponiry  cciline-  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  carjo  in  tjue-lion  i<  derived  ehielly  from  the  tes- 
timony of  the   hi'ad   -levcdorc   who  superintended   the  dis- 
cliai'LJ'c  of  the  carn'o,  ami  t  he    fact    that    the  steamer  on   her 
former   voNai^c   from   ( )de--a  to   l-'alinonth   U>v  orders   car- 
ried a  carti'o  of  wheat  which  wa-  delivered  wit hoiit   iniurv. 

I5e\(in<l  all  doulil  the  c\  ideiicc  -hows  that  the  d.'MiaLi't'  was 


^* 


N 


t 


KiSr 


408 


il 


'INK  (•<»NTi;.\<  TS  OF  CMMMKIIS. 


[ 


(11.   XIII, 


fiuisoil  l)v  sail  water  wliidi  caiiic  in  ((.iilact  wilh  the  Itiiiulh 


of  slicil  iioii  as  tlicv  la\    >1 


iiuiu  III  liic  alt  lower  liold 


111(1 


it  is  ctjuallv  clcai"  thai  tlu'  water  inuH  have  icaclicd  tiic  iiuM 
in  iaiiif  (|iiaiilili('s  to  iiavc  taiix-d  >iitli  cxtt-iisiNc  daiiiaiii'  to 
oiii-  (lioiisaiid  ItuiidU's  (d"  the  iron,  esliiiiatcd  to  \V(ii:Ii  tirt\- 
live  tons.  Carpet  stowed  in  llic  same  li(d(i  aliovc  tin-  liuii- 
(llcs  (d'  sheet  iioii  eaiiie  <ail  in  j:(iod  eoiidilion  ;  and  the 
wit  iie.>se^  for  the  re.-j)(iiideiils  ai^ree  that  there  liad  heeii  lio 
leaka^'e  tliron;:li  t!;e  hatelies,  IVoin  whit  li  it  woiihl  seem  to 
foHow  that  the  wat«'r  inu-l  lia\e  I'oiiie  Croiii  hehnv.  ( 'oii- 
tirniation  (d*  that  view  of  a  |)er>uasive  eiiaraeter  is  (h'lived 
from  the  tesiimoiiv  of  Die  master,  wiio  in  (hreet  t«'rm>  at- 
triltiites  tile  (hiniaire  to  tlie  hhiwinjr  (d'  l)il;ie  water  tlironuh 
tJK'  seams  of  tile  <-<'iiiiii:-  in  tin-  after  iiohl  wlieii  tlie  sleamer 
rolled.  Current  support  to  that  theoiv  i>  also  derived  from 
the  totiliioiiv  of  the  mat*',  who  expresses  the  opinion  that 
it  was  caused  hv  (he  >hip  l:d»(>riii_i:'  s(»  hea\il\  and  rollin<>-. 
Conviueinii' eoiilirmation  <d'  that  iheorv.  if  more  he  needed, 
is  also  found  in  the  te-tinioiiy  of  port  waideii.  raiiie.  who 
tcslilicd  that  when  he  went  down  into  the  after  hold  he  did 
not  see  anvthiiiL''  thnt  d(  noted  a  leah.  and  he  e\pres>ed  the 
opinion  that  it  mu.-i  have  lieeii  done  l»v  what  i>  ealled  "hluw- 
in_ir.""  that  is,  that  the  hilire  water  >washes  up  when  the  >hip 
rolls,  and  he  added  thai  it  is  a  common  tliiiiL:  for  l»il;:e  watei- 
to  l»low  up  when  IIm'  ship  hihors,  as  explained,  and  that  it 
does  not  take  iniieh  water  to  dania,L''e  shcel  ii-on.  Few 
steamers  have  their  ceilings  <-aidked  so  ;is  to  he  water  tiuht, 
and  in  all  eases  where  they  do  not  it  >eem>  that  the  Idowinir 
(d'  liili^e  water  through  the  >eani>  of  the  ceilinj.'  i,>  a  common 
oeeurreiiee  when  the  ves^el  rolls. 

Sti'aniers,  as  well  as  sail  >hips.  rtdl  more  or  less  on  e\erv 
such  voyaii-e,  \aryiiiir  in  dciirce  with  the  >late  of  the  wind, 
the  coii:itruetion  of  the  \  e->el,  the  niame  ;•  ii)\\i,;(ii  sli«'  is 
h)aded,  and  the  nieaii>  l»y  whicii  she  is  j  ,0;.  ••.eij,  i-'u-.i 
suppose  that  cases  ma\  arise  whc.  it  won!!  !;reptt!\  !>" 
held  that  hlowintf  is  a  "peril  n\'  iia  v  ii^alioii,  uiliri.  such 
an    exception    in    a    hill    of   ladini:-,  it    is   clear  thai     ueh  :i 


II.    XIII. 
ItlllKJIo 

l«l  ;  mid 

!•'    il'iiM 

iiai^i-  Id 
li   liri\- 

!'•      Illlll- 

ili(i    \Ur 

ICfll      III) 

<'»'lli  lo 
(  '<ili- 
(|('ri\  ((I 
iii-<  iil- 
t  ln'oiiLili 
slcamci- 

<<l   IVdlll 

ion   tli.'it 

Inlliiii;'. 

ll«'»(|((|, 

IK',   wild 

lie    Wid 

«M'(|   the 

I  "l.ldW- 

llit'  >lii|t 
:»'  w.-ilcr 
lli.'it  it 
Vvw 
•I'  li,:;lil, 
'Iduiiii,'- 

Olllllldll 


CM.   XIII.] 


rNUr.i'OKTKI)  (Af-KS. 


40!) 


nilr  t-aii  not  !•('  Mpplicd  in  liiis  cmsc  us  ii  aiipciirs  ||i:it  ihf 
•rodds  niijilit  Ii.ivc  Itccii  prdtt'clcd  iVom  such  daniap-  l»\  rras- 
(tiialilc  l'i>ri'-i<,dil,  care  and  priHlciicc,  llic  mic  Ixiii;;' tliat  tln' 
carrier  (Ui.ulit  to  take  adcfpiatc  measures  to  jirotect  the  carp) 
aufainst  a  conmion  and  ordinary  occurrence  which  niiu'ht  and 
()ll<:hl  lo  have  heeii  foi'eseen.''  "l)anuers  cd'  the  seas," 
said  .Indtie  Slum,  wlielhcr  nii(!cr>lo(»d  in  il>  nio^t  liiniled 
sense  as  import iii'i  oniy  a  io,-s  hy  the  natural  ai-ciih'iits  pe- 
cnliar  to  tliat  element .  or  whether  iinderslood  in  its  most 
extended  sense  as  incliidiiiu'  inevitahle  a<'cidcnts  upon  that 
element,  nui.-i  still  in  either  case  Ix-  clcai'ly  niuh'rstood  to 
include  only  such  losses  as  ;ire  <d"  an  extraordinarv  nature, 
oi' ari>e  fi'din  >ncli  irresi>tilile  i'drce  di-  sdiiie  o\eiwhelmiiii; 
power  wliich  can  not  lie  liiianh'd  aiiaiiist  livtlu'  oinlinarx'  ex- 
ertions of  hiiinan  >kil!  and  pi'iidenee."  Hence  it  i>  liial  if 
the  l(»>s  occnrre*!  Iiy  a  "peril  of  the  sea"  that  miiiht 
lia\('  Iteeii  avoided  i»y  the  exercise  of  any  reasonahh!  >kill 
or  diliu'c'iiee  at  the  lime  when  it  occurred,  it  is  nol  deemed  to 
l»e  in  llie  sense  of  the  phi'ase  such  a  loss  l»y  the  '«  perils  (tf 
the  sea"  as  will  ex.inpl  the  carrier  from  liahilily.-' 

J?oth  parlii's  a^i'ree  that  the  >teanier  was  well  liuill.and 
that  in  the  general  sense  she  was  >eaw(trthy  when  the  voyage 
he^jfaii  and  when  it  eiidccl  at  the  poll  of  destination,  ihe 
only  defect  alle!.;e<l  hy  the  lihellants  lieini:-  thai  in  con.-'e- 
(juence  of  her  peculiar  conslriict ion  and  the  iiisnlHciency  of 
hi  r  ceiliiii:-  and  dunnage  she  was  uidil  lo  carry  sheet  iion 
>i<»wed  in  her  aft  lowi-r  hold  on  such  a  voyaijc  (hiring''  I  ho 
wilder  and  eaily  sprin;;'  months  of  the  year;  and  llie  court 
is  df  the  opiniim  that  the  i^rcal  wei<:hl  id'  the  evidence 
fully  >u>laiiis  thai  proposition.  It  may  he  that  the  sleamer 
would  ha\('  lieeii  a  lit  and  proper  ves>c|  to  carry  sueli  cariro 
on  sn<li  xoyaife  in  a  milder  .-easdii  of  IJie  year,  or  llial  she 
wouKl  have  heeii  a   lit  and  proper  ve>sel  for  the   voyage   in 

-'  Hears..  V.  i?ni.c<.  I  Spr.iiruc.  ;!:)J  (H.-jil). 
" 'I'ln'  Kcc-ide.  -J  Slim.  "I'i"  (I.>;(7). 

-'  N'iif,'i'iit  v.  Siiiiili.  I,.  |l.  I  ('.  p.  |»iv.  |2:t  (isf.'i);  Stun  on  !};iiliiiciii-i. 
7tli  ''li..  s-  ."il-J:  :i  Kem"-  (  niii.  i  J-Jili  cil.  i  \lil . 


<» 


Tin:  CONTKACTS  or  CAIMMKIIS.  [cm.   Mil. 


:r; 


:>■• 


m 


(liu'>liini  if  licr  ccilinir  IukI  Iic«ii  walcr  liLiIil,  or  if  tlic  >Im'c1 
iron  li;i(l  hi'cii  st(t\\«'(|  Itctwct'ii  decks,  liiit  it  is  very  ch'ar  in 
tlic  iti(iiinifiil  of  the  riiiirt.  that  llic  cuii-t nictii»ii  and  dffcc- 
ti\<'  cfilini!"  of  the  stcanifr,  taken  in  eoiineition  with  the 
|ilae«' and  manner  of  >lo\\ai:c,  reiwhred  her  unlit  to  trans- 
port such  li'oods  on  such  a  xoyap'at  that  ><'as(in  <»f  the  year. 
Hytiie  teinis  of  tlie  hill  of  Ladiiiir  safe  custody  is  as  inneh 
a  part  of  the  contract  of  the  carrier  as  due  transport  and 
riiiht  <leli\cry.  W'iieii  -hipped  llie  sheet  iroii\\a>in  L:ood 
order  and  condition.  :ind  w  len  delivficd  il  ua>  l)adl\'  ihini- 
aii'cd  Ity  salt  water,  the  evidence  showin;^-  to  the  >atist"at  tioii 
(d'  the  court  tliat  the  waiei'  o!>taiiied  access  to  tlie  Liood^ 
throni:h  the  seani--  or  cre\  Ices  in  the  ccilinir  of  the  steainer. 
10\i(h'nce  <d"  ieai;ai;c  is  nut  exhiititcd  in  ihi-  r<'eord,  and 
inasmuch  a>  it  i-  provetl  that  the  cai';.'  •  stowed  aliove  th<' 
iron  in  the>ainc  hold  c;, me  out  (h'y,  il  -eeins  clear  aliiio-t 
to  a  dciiion-tiation.  thai  if  the  ccilin;^-  had  liccn  v.aler-tiL'ht 
no  such  damage  would  lia\<'  iiccn  occasioned,  aixi  tliat  ihe 
swashilli:'  of  I  he  liiluc-wal  cr  lielween  the  sidis  of  the  vessel 
and  the  ceiliiiti'  would  not  li.i\e  caused  it  to  reach  the  sheet 
iron,  thoiii:h  stowed  in  the  aft  lnwer  hold.  Where  j^oods 
are  shipped  and  the  iisijal  hill  of  l.idiiiir  liiven  promi^ini.f  to 
deliver  the  same  in  i^dod  order,  the  daiii^ci's  nf  the  seas  ex- 
(•('pt('(|  without  more,  and  liny  arc  found  to  lie  daimijicd,  IIh 

otiils  iii'iifid  mil  is  upon  liic  (lUjiei-.  nf  the  \  es^i  1  to  sIkiW  llltll 
the  injury  was  (iecasi(Hied  liy  one  (d'  the  excepted  perils,^' 
Kcpoi'ted  cases,  JKtwever,  may  lie  found  where  it  is  held  lliaf 
if  an  exeepte<l  peril  is  vhow  n  which  is  adeijuate  to  ha\e  oc- 
casioned tin-  loss,  the  luirdeii  of  proof  >hifts,  an<l  thai  the 
shippci'  in  such  a  ca-e  is  re(|uired  In  >li(iw  that  it  was  not 
occasioned  liy  t  h.il  peril  luit  liy  -oinc  ne;rli.irein  c  of  the  <  airier 
"liich  rendered  that  peril  elli'iciit .  or  co-upcr.itcd  with  il.or 
lii'oUL'hl  it  aliout  uithoiil  aii\  conucctio!i  with  the  sea  peril.' 


-' < 'iMik  V.  !'.:irn\v(!l.  IJ  How. -JT  l»">li:  .*-'.ii.ry  on  r.;iiliiiriits  fTlli  i'«l.) 
5-  .".2:1:  Nelson  \.  \\ Iiiili.  I  jthi.  I».  I."ii;  (iMil). 

■''•'''rill'  ln\iiifi  !".  1  f.MW.'ll.  JJ.".  (Isiis);  •j'lic  I.(\in'„'li>ii.  I!  lliiw.  :i  1 1 
(isis^ 


<  It.  Mil. 

lie  >Ii('cf 
«'lc:ir  ill 
(I  <l.'fVc- 
witli  llic 
II  tr.Mii-.- 
Iic  Vfjir. 
:is  iiiiK'li 

•  •It    .-iiiil 

ill  'j:n<u\ 
l\  (Imiii- 
-I'.K  I  ion 

•  L!'<I(m|s 
>|C.III!CI'. 

"I'll,  :iii(| 

'•i\t'    the 

II'  :iliii(i-.| 

il«'i-li-lit 
lli.'il    llic 

IC  \  (■>>(. I 
lIlC  >ll<(| 
■IT    liUuds 

iii^iii'^'  III 
>l'il»  cx- 

il;v(|.  till 

ll"U    tilttl 

pciilH.-' 
i>l<l  lli.it 

IlllVC  »»(•- 
tlllll     tlic 

WHS  not 
(•  cjinirr 
III  it.  or 
I  |i<  ril. 

(7lli  <•<!.) 


(11.   XII!.] 


l'XKi;i'()|{TKI)  CASI-.s. 


11 


Such  slii|)  (iwiicrs  <;irrviii-:' i:()()(|s  iiii,l,.r  ii  l.iH  of  Intliii::-  l»v 
which  Ihcv  coiitr.-icl  to  deliver  the  ifoods  in  oood  order  :iiid 
coiidilioii,  certiiiii  i>,-ril>  exceiijcd,  ;ire  Ixnnid  lo  deliver 
the  siime  ill  lli;it  eoiidilioii  iiiile»  prcM-iileil  li\-  those  peiils, 
iiiid  Mi'c  rcspoiisililc  I'or  any  d:iiii:ii:-e  to  the  i^oods  occasioiic<l 
otherwise  than  U\  those  perils.-'''  'Jhrec  marine  >urvevor.s 
cxaniined  the  steamer  after  her  return,  and  concur  in  the 
(iliinion  thai  she  was  not  lit  for  siicji  a  vo\aire  at  that  sea- 
.-(•11.  in  view  of  iier  con-lriictioii  and  con-ei|iienl  l(  iidt'iicv  to 
roll  and  produce  lilowinn-  in  a  heavy  >ea.  and  niaii\'  other 
uiliie»e>  ar^  (d"  ihe  >aiiie  o|Mnioii.  Ili'i-  inlcrnal  cnn-tiaic- 
tion  was  >neii  tiiat  liiliic  water  coiihl  hlou  into  the  liold 
through  the  .-.cam-  (d*  her  ceilini:-  when  >he  rolled,  it  appear- 
iiii:'  that  liei-  ceiliiiL!-  \mis  hnilt  iijion  the  liio  of  the  >liip.  he- 
j^inniiiii'  at  I  In-  kc  I-mh,  only  foiirtei'ii  inches  aliovc  her  ir»»ii 
hotloiii.    iiid    Hial    il    coiitiniii'd   all    thewavnp   to   Imi'  main 

<|c('|«,  JM'inu'oiily  ahuiil   fniir  iiicin-  ;iwa\-  fr her  iri>ii  -idc-, 

which  -how-  thai  lul'jc  water  luiL'lit  I'ti^li  up  lictwcen  the 
ceilinir  and    lui    iron   -idc-  whci,.'\('r  the  shipped  roi'iU-d,  a* 

(here  i-  no  e\ide|ice  \u  -how  that  the  s<:uil-  of  tlr  ceiliM'.r 
y\cVi'  caiilkeil  or  pitched  hcfoie  -he  sailc(|,  or  at  aiiv  lime 
(hiriii;/tlic  \(iyai:e.  |)id"ccisnf  the  kind  mi'j'hl  ea-tiv  lia\e 
lieeii  reiiicdicd  l)cforc  iIk'  Mixairc  liei^an.  or  al  an\  titne  dur- 
ing/its  projj-re-- :  Init  it  iloc-  not  appear  that  aiiv  altemiil 
WJI-*  iiiimI''  <o  apply  any  of  iiic  known  remedies  for  such  (in- 
fects. S(owai:'«'  ill  the  lower  li<»ld  niav  l»e  a  lit  place  even 
fnr  such  a  carii'o  in  a  -teiiiiiertd'  a  different  const riiciion,  and 
douht  less  iiiii:hl  ha\i'hceii  ill  l  he  stcamei' (d"  the  liiielluiils 
if  the  ceiJiinr  had  Imcii  w ater-t i;:i'ht .  or  if  prop«'r  meams  had 
been  devised  and  applied  to  prcAciit  the  l>litr«'  •'iit.^'i'  wiieii 
Ihe  vessel  rolled  fidiii  iilowin;^^  or  escajwrnr  throiiii'h  the 
sciiiii.x  of  Ih''  ceilinjjr  and  rni<lin<r  a.<'e*'ss  to  the  sheet  ir'»n  a> 
flowed  ill  the  hold.  Snitalne  appliances,  it  i-  not  douli1»'d, 
uoiihl  have  prevented  -uch  conse(|iiences,  and  protfcie<|  the 
fi\r>fi>  from  damai;e.  \««lhinir(>f  the  kind  was  done  of  at- 
tempted, and  in  view  (d'  the  e\po-ed  coiHJitiou  of  thi'  (■ar;rf> 
*'riic('li:i-r.i.  I..  |{.  I  A.liii.  II'",.  :\i  I,.  V.  cN,  S  i  '^:is  dxT.'). 


41: 


TMK  (•(►XTIIACTS  OP  C  MMMKIIM. 


[ 


ru.  xiii. 


hii 


from  the  cMiisrs  shown,  (lie  (•((iicliisioii  imi-t  lie  tliiit  llic  |»l;irf 
wlicrc  lilt'  sMiiM"  \v:is  slowfd  wms  an  unlit  |tl:irc  in  llmt 
stcanitf  foi'  >to\\  iiiii' siH'li  cai'ifo  on  >ii(  li  a  vovai^c  al  lliat 
season  of  the  ycai'. 

DclVnx'N  of  various  kinds  ai'c  -rt  up  in  arjfunicnl .  of 
wliiili  the  two  iirincipal  onts  (ifsrixc  to  lie  >|ir(  iaily  cx- 
iiinin'Ml.  I.  Tliat  tlic  liill  of  iadiuL''  <\c(|»t>  Icakauc.  Iircak- 
airc  and  ni-l  :  tiic  lanufuaji;*' of  llie  ii!>t  laiinml  iicint;'  •' no! 
answcraldc  for  lcaUa;ic,  hfcakairr  oi'  iii>t.""  _'.  'I'lial  llic 
(laiiiati*'  was  <-aus»M|  Ky  tiic  '*  perils  (d'  tlic  xas,"  wiiliin  llir 
nicaninir  of  the  l)ill  of   ladinL^  « 

I.  'I'wo  or  niorr  answers  may  lie  made  lo  I  he  (hd'msc 
arisinjr  from  tin-  said  cxrcplion  : —  I.  It  is  not  adtMpialc  to 
liavf  (»c('asion(M|  the  lo-<s.  Kn-^t  may  Itc  laii^cd  Ity  sweat  oi- 
mere  nioi>turf  <d"  tlic  air  in  I  Ik-  place  wlicrc  licmmIs  ai'c 
sl«»wed.and  it  may  Ix- tliat  the  exception  i^  adeipiate  to  cover 
MU'h  a  loss,  an<l  in  such  a  case  to  sliifi  the  iiurden  of  proof 
fi'om  the  earlier  to  th«'  shipper,  to  -how  that  the  loss  was 
not  occasioned  Ityihat  peril.  2.  Concede  that.lnit  it  liy  no 
means  follows  that  >ueh  an  exception  is  ade(|uate  tocoNer 
the  damayv'  in  this  ease,  which  arose  from  the  pnd'useh 
wottinsxaud  soakiuLM he  sheet  iron  in  salt  MIlic  water,  lilown 
(hroUiih  the  seams  and  crevices  of  th<  eeilimj;  on  the  sides 
of  tlu' phu-^' where  ihe  iron  was  slowed.  VieUeil  in  the  li;;lil 
of  theai'tnal  cireunistanees,  it  i>i  clear  that  the  exception  is 
ni'ither  a<le<piale  nor  sulliciently  e(»nn<rehcnsive  to  comi-  the 
tlamaL-^is  occasioned  l»y  th<'  means  pro\«'«|  in  this  case.  ,">. 
Suppose,  howv\er.  it  may  have  the  effect  »o  shift  the  linitlen 
of  proof,  >lill  it  does  noi  follow  ihat  the  defense  e.  »  valid 
one,  as  it  fidly  appear-  ihit  the  e\iden«e  intio«luee«l  li\  the 
lihellants  is  sullicieiil  to  oven-ome  ev*«rv  presumption  in  fa\or 
of  the  /arrii'r,  and  to  show  that  the  damairc*  was  occasioned 
hy  mere  want  of   foresiirht,  care  anti  <iilii:"ence. 

II.  Nor  is  thei'c  any  better  i:roiind  !«»  >uppoit  the  x cond 
defence.  IOvideiic<'  to  suppoit  the  defense  was  introduced 
in  the  court  helou.  consisting  <d'  the  depositions  of  the  mas- 
ter, mate  and  euiiineer  of  the  steamer.  .omI  the  prou-st  jihil 


'11.    v,,, 

llir  phicr 
ill    that 

Ml      lIlMl 

iin'iii,  (,r 

•i.illy  cx- 

.    I>IT;i|,- 
lllli'   ••  IKil 
'li;it     liir 

iliiiii  llic 

'      «lt'l'<'ll>C 
•'|ll!llc    to 

>uca(  <)|- 
Kttis    ail- 

to  Cdv  ('!• 

"f  i»i(Mir 

it  liv  iii> 

to    COV  i'l- 

>r(»rus,.|v 

I",    lllow  II 

llif  -iilcs 
llir  li^'l.l 

•  'plioii  is 

(IMT  ill,. 
.•l>c.        .1. 

•  liiirdi'ii 

•  n  valid 
I  l.y  III.- 
in  fa\(tr 
•a>ioii('(i 

'  sj'foiid 
I'odllrcd 
Ik-  iiias- 
-t  (il(<l 


(11.  MM.] 


im:i;i'oi!i  r.K  <  vsr.s. 


II. I 


ill  llicrasc:  and  llio-^c  dociiiiH'iit-'  aic  cxIiiltiliMl  in  tiio  ic- 
cnrd,  l(»,L'«'llH'r  with  tin-  dt'iMisiiions  of  nincliin  oilier  uil- 
in's^cs  lakfii  since  the  apjteal.  of  wliieh  sixteen  were  inlro- 
diK  t'd  \)\  llie  liliell.iiits.  ,'<|ii|>>  caiiv  iiiir  earL'oe>  !is  coininon 
carriers  iiiiisl  lie  lilted  to  ciicoimier  oi'dinaix  >ca  perils  on 
the  voyajrc  desci'jlM'd  in  the  c(nilr!icl  of  shijinieiit.  Injuries 
t(»  cariro  I'esiillhicf  from  su.  h  |.cril~  ;:i\('  the  shi|i|ier  a  liirlil 
of.  action  a;jfMins|  Ihe  carrier,  liiil  the  court  hclow,  on  the 
evidence  then  cxhiliiled,  found  that  tlie<;ales  were  proved 
to  he  of  exlraordinarv  violence,  and  *iich  as  woidd  have  hecn 
likely  to  dainai:*'  :i  seaworlliv  shi|),  an<l  Itt  conic  within  Ihe 
usual  d(<tinition  of  such  perils.  Ucsp(Misive  to  I  hat,  Ihe  first 
oi)S('rvati(»n  to  lie  made  is  that  the  uriih's  referred  l<i  did  not 
damairr  the  steamei-  of  the  respondeiils  in  the  sliLdilot  (h'- 
<;ree  worth  mentiouinjr,  .'is  appears  from  all  the  li'stjiuony 
exhiliited  !is  to  her  condition  after  she  arrived  at  lici-  port  of 
destination.  KxcepI  that  the  muzzle  around  the  end  of  the 
pipe  under  the  ceilinir  liroUe  loose,  there  is  no  proof  of  ;irlu!d 
damairc  to  the  steamer,  and  it  is  not  elainicij  that  the  ex- 
penses of  repairinu' lliat  injury  uoiiM  anioin!  to  more  th:ni 
a  nominal  sum.  \\'ilnesses  ciilled  liy  the  respondents,  especi- 
ally the  ollicers  of  the  steamer,  sustain  tl  theory  <d'  the 
re-pondeiits  ih.Mt  the  iiales  which  the  slc'imer  eiicounlered 
were  exiraordiniiry,  Init  in  view  of  the  very  >rn:lit  d.imairc 
Iti  Ihi'  vessel,  Mini  Ilic  colli  riidictory  lestiniony  introduced  hy 
llic  liliellanls  since  the  appial,  I  he  court  is  of  th.dpinion 
that  the  \io|eiiccof  the  j^ales  was  iiiiich  exasjip' rated  in  the 
le>.|ini(iliy  of  the  ollicci-  as  intiddiiccd  in  the  court  licjow,'' 
OppiHi't)  In  I  he  tlieoi  \  of  the  respondents  that  the  <lama,<r(> 
v\as  occasioned  li\  the  extr;iordinary  "  peril-  of  the  seas," 
i'  till'  lllilli'il  le-timony  of  the  sixteen  witnox's  ^ince  intro- 
dljceil  In  Ihe  respondents.  Siillice  it  to  ^ay  wit lioni  reproduc- 
ing' their  lestiniony,  that  llie\  are  witin^siw  .,f  j^ical  iinillical 
cvperieiicc,  and  lli.it  t  h<  \  ;ill  tc-i  I'y  in  -ul»l,iiiec  .and  effect 
that  the  weather,  e\«'n  as  descrilied  liy  llic  masler.  wa-  n»»t 
more  hoislerons  than  is  usually  foi      Ion  that  \o\  >;j:eat  tlutt 

■■'"   I'll.'  ()(|ii.'inl(i.  :{s  !..  '!'.  I  N.  S.    .  |.")l. 


til 


'I'll!':  (ONTI.VXCIS  (»!•  CAIMMKIiS.  [<II.    Mil. 


wkr^  * 


si'iisoii  III"  llic  year.  I'/mlit  >t»':iiii('is  ('(iiiiiiiji' wt-luiiid  (i\ci' 
llic  saiiM'  luiilc  a>  llii'  >lcaiiH'i'  of  llif  n'~-|Miii(lfiils,  >lartiiiL:- 
al  (lilTficiil  liiiifs  latt'f,  ovfrlook  and  parsed  licr  a(  variiiii> 
[Ktiiils  (III  Ik  r  cinirsc,  and  cncoiinlt'ifd  <iii!\  nindcralc  wcallur, 
and  iiiadf  \«'rv  iidntl  paN^aL't'^  a>  lo  linic  (  >ii  tlic  utlur 
liiiid,  >t(ann'r>  uliicli  \v['\  a  uccU  cailici'  than  tin-  -"Ifanu'r  n[ 
ijic  ropiiiidi'iits,  cindiinii  rc'l  ^cmtc  and  licav  v  Wfallicr,  .-inli 
its  is  til  lu'  i'\|ii< it'll  and  i-<  ii-nall\  f\|ifriinf<d  during' llic 
wiiittT  and  caily  >|i;iiiL;'  nnnitlis.  Iii(|iiirv  \va>  made  (d"  tlic 
iiia>tri'  w  lictluT  111"  iidl  there  was  anv  iinnsiial  u  ind  ur  \\  eat  her 
tliirin;^'  llu'  voyap',  and  his  Mn>\\er  was  :  ••We  had  \  ery  heavy 
plies,  sir,  liiit  I  eiinid  imt  >ay  it  was  an  iiiiii>iial  ihin^ji,'  to 
have  —  e.\i'.'|tl  al  that  sea>iiii  —  lieinw  xi  I'ar  aiUaiu fd.'' 

Kxaniiiied  in  the  lii:lil  ul'  tlie  whnh-  i  \  idciiee,  the  eoiirt  is 
(if  the  diiinidii  that  the  I'espiHident s  have  faih-il  to  show  that 
the  damaj_'e  was  ((ceasidiied  liy  tlie  '•  peiils  of  (he  seas" 
within  the  ineanini:'  of  tlie  liiil  of  ladini:.  .Miieli  testinidiiy 
was  inlrddiieed  liy  the  respective  [>arlie>  in  lepird  td  the 
dunnaiii'  df  the^heet  irmi  stdwcd  in  the  hiwcr  Imld.  '*  hiiii- 
naire"  ii->iially  ednsisl^  of  pieces  iif  wikmI  pia( cd  apiiiist  (he 
sides  and  liiiltiuii  ul'  the  hdid  df  tiie  >hip,  tii  pnitect  the  caipd 
fi'diii  iiijnry  liy  cdiitait  with  the  nc^-cI  nr  dliier  carpi,  (ir  li\' 
leaUap'.  ( "duliiied  td  tiiat  piirpuse,  t  lie  cdiirt  is  df  the  njiiii- 
idii  that  tlieweii:ht  df  t he  e\  ideiiee  shiiws  thai  it  was  siif- 
liiieiit,  iillt  if  its  piirpdse  he  extended  as  a  iiieail<  td  pl'dteel 
the  car^'d  >t(iwe(l  in  the  liiild  fruiii  licinu-  wet  In  Itilp-  water 
lihiwn  tlirdiii:li  ihe  -eaiiis  and  crevices  id'  a  (|efecti\c  ceiiinti'. 
the  idiirt  is  (if  the  dpiiiiiin  that  it  was  clearly  insiilH<'i<'iit  In 
affdi'd  any  >ncli  sntiicient  prdteciidii.  ( 'diiclii-.i\('  prind'  is 
exhiliiled  that  the  eeijini:' was  iidt  water  tii:lit,and  all  (lie 
witnesses  examined  upon  tin*  siihjeet,  exce|il  the  head  stexc- 
dore  and  diie  of  his  assistants,  had  ifiveii  evidence  tendinis 
t()edi;\ince  thecdiiit  that  the  salt  water  ohtaiiied  access  tn 
the  sheet  ii'dii  t  hrdniiii  theccilini;.  'restinidiiy  to  thecdii- 
(rary  eoines  chielly  ffniil  the  stevcddic,  Imt  his  staleineiits 
lire  so  indetiiii(«',  ediitradictiiiy,  rash  and  incdiisideral*'.  lliat 
liev  fail  to  secure  the  cdlicui'renee  of   the  court    ill  (heir  ac- 


<  II.    Mil. 

11(1    (M(  T 
>lMr(illi; 

\!iriiiii> 
H'  oiIk  r 

IIIKT  !)( 
•  •!•,  MkIi 
lill.li-  tllc 
<>r  the 
\\(';illi(T 
\  licavv 
liiii:'  !i) 
•(i."' 

•  nlil'l  i> 
low  tli.-it 
I'  si';|n" 
>l  illMUIV 
I  to  tllc 
Dllll- 
(ill^t    tllc 

It'  r:iii:(» 
o,  or  |)\ 
lit'  (tpin- 
>v;is  siil'- 

|»l(»tcrl 

•<•  u:iicr 
<'('iliiiii-, 
•iciit  l<i 
•  roof  i-, 
all   the 

I  >tc\c- 

ti'iidiiin' 
•ccs>  lo 
lie  coii- 
cinciils 
c,  that 
K'ir  ac- 


(  II.    MM. 


r\i!i:iM»i;ii;i>  fAM:>4. 


n:> 


rUra<-y.       licV'tlul    i'ii|itlo\cfsy  till'  (|illli;i;j'c  t(»    I  he  >hcc(    iron 

wasoccMsidiicd  l)\  "  lili)«iii;:."  I.\  which  iv  mcaiil  thai  the  -iili 
liilirt' water  ('(HiikI  !ic.  c->  to  (he  iidn  :is  >i(iue(l  i,,  ijic  forward 
|i;il't  td"  the  a  ft  er  lioll.  thl'ulli:ii  the  >e;iiil>  and  «M'c\iec  of 
the  eeiliii;:  win  n  the  vc-m  I  rolled:  from  whicj,  it  follows 
iliMl  tin  lil»cll:;iit-.  ;ire  entitled  lo  rcmv  er.  Miid  llinl  the  de- 
cree inil^t  lie  reversed.  Scpiiratc  lilidiiii.'s  of  fjid  niid  l;i\\ 
.ire  rci|uire(l  in  ai'  adiiiiiidtv  Miil  in  the  ( 'irenii  Conrl  in  all 
ca>c-  where  I  he  ainoiinl  in  eoiilrov  crsv,  (ni  a|i)  cal,  is  siillii  i- 
elit  to  i;i\e  1  he  Siipreiiie  ( 'oiirt  jlllisdiel  ion  to  re-exiiinilie  t  he 
decree  reiidei'eil  in  the  Circuit  Ciiirt  :  lnit  where  the  sum  or 
\aliie  in  dis|)ille  docs  not  exceed  the  -  un  or  value  (d"  live 
thousand  didlai-,  a  inoic  ^icncral  liiuiiii'j'  o!"  tlni-e  matter^ 
ill    the  opinion  (d"  the  ('ircnit  (  .>iiil  will  !•.    -iilli(  ieiit  .-'^ 

Prior  to  the  liliiii:-  (d'  le  answer  the  li.  clhints  tiled  an 
ainendnient  to  the  lihel,  iiicreiisini:' the  f<»/ /A///(/</o//  to  four 
llioii^and  dollars,  and  ina-^niiich  as  i  he  res|Mindents  made  no 
olijei^tioii  to  the  amendineiit  it  is  deemed  |»ro|»er  to  repird  it 
a>  lia\  iiiL:'  lieen  did  v  allowed,  a>  othcrw  i-c  it  won  hi  he  allowed 
ii\  t  his  fonrt .  ( )n  dinie  HI,  l.sTii,  the  liiic Hants  asked  lea\  e 
to  tile  a  second  cunnl  a>  an  ainendnient  to  the  lihel,  and  the 
court  ordered  it  |daced  on  tile.  rocrviiiL:'  the  (|iie-tioii  (d'  it> 
allowance  o|-  disallowance  to  lie  decided  al  the  tiiial  heariiiL;'. 
I'iir>naiit  to  that  order  the  ainendnient  as  |iro|)(»sed  is 
allowed,  liiit  the  addilional  anieiidiiieiit  proposed  jil  the  aritti- 
inciit  further  iliereasini;  the  <n/  ihi nuiiini ,  i-  disallowed. 
Kvideiice  as  |o  lhe  extent  of  the  damaiiC  is  contained  in  the 
record,  and  in  view  of  that  fail  it  is  not  necessary  to  rcd'er 
the  caiHc  to  a  coiiiini --ioiicr  to  a>i'eitain  the  anioiiiit ,  the 
court  lieiiiLl"  satisfied  that  the  |os>  exceeds  e\c  i  the  aineiideil 
<iil  ildiinnnn  (tf  the  Hhcl,  which  is  all  the  col  rt  call  allow 
under  the  pleadinu'^^,  excciil  for  costs  which  I'ave  arisen 
lhr(»ii,i:h  the  faiiil  of  the  respondents  in  not  payin::- llii' jiut 
claim  of  the  lihidlants.-"' 

'*  Vitrilicil  l'i|.f.-.  11  151,11.  iif.  i!7 1  (1^77):   IsSimi.ui  l.ar-;<>.-Jir)  J  l.:ilil, 

-'•''Hie  Wiuiiiiii.  11.')  f.  s.  ciH)  i^x^'ii). 


1 


i 


'iu 


^. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


La  12.8 

150     ^^ 


2.5 
2.2 

I  ^  iiiii 

1.8 


—  1—  lill'-^ 

^ 

6" 

► 

7. 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


\ 


^ 


•SJ 


[v 


33  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14SS0 

(716)  872-4S03 


11 


ms 


>  ■   V' 


416 


THE  CONTRACTS  OF  CARUIKIIS.  [CH.  XIII. 


The  decree  of  the  District  Court  is  reversed  and  a  decree 
for  the  lihelh'uts  entered  for  tiie  sum  of  four  tlionsand  dol- 
hirs,  with  costs. 

NoTK.  —  Upon  the.ft'r.s<])r<>i)o.-:iii()ii()f  t]n'  !<)/Unhiis  in  tlic  forcfjoinjjf  ease 
see  ante.  §;?  1.  r),14!). 

Upon  the  .svco/h/ proijosition  of  tlie  siillnbus  see  ante,  §<)  1152,  1(1."). 

Upon  the  third  ]>rop(>sition  of  tiie  Kijllahiis  ace  autc,  ^  V.Vl,  IS-i. 

Upon  tlie  fiiurth  proi)osilion  of  the  syllabus  see  ante.  §§  1215,  "240,  247, 
248,  249,  250,  251. 


,1 

,  f 


§257.  ASSENT  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  IJILL  OF  LADING  — EXEMP- 
TION FIIOM  LOSS  BY  '-FIIiE  —  BURDEN  OF  PKOOF — 
ACTS  OF  MOB. 


Wertiieimeu  V.  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company. 

United  States  Circuit  C'tiurt,  Scntthern  Distnct  of  A^ew  Yurk-.  Janitanj,  ISSO. 
Before  Hon.  Wii.I-iam  .1.  Wam.ack,  District  Jn(l!j;e. 

1.  The  acceptance  of  a  bill  of  ladinj;:  at  the  lime  of  the  delivery  of  th(^ 
goods  constitntcs  a  conlraci  lietwccn  tlie  parties  aci'ordinj;  to  tlie 
terms  and  conditions  wliicli  a]t])e;ir  iipi>n  its  fai'c. 

2.  AViiere  the  contract  except-;  cerliiin  hisses,  tlie  hnnlen  of  ])rovin!i:  (hat 
the  loss  in  (picslion  arose  fiom  the  ncglij;<'nce  of  the  carrier,  is  ajxni 
the  shippoi'. 

ii.  Evidence  lh;it  tin'  destriictii)n  of  the  li'oods  liy  lire  (mm  I'xcepteil  li;i- 
hilily)  was  tic  act  of  a  nml)  cniraitcd  in  a  striiuiih'  w  ith  the  anthi>ri- 
ties  of  Die  Stale.  wiilKdil  any  in'dof  thai  the  carrier  was  Ixiund  from 
the  circiimsiaiiccs  to  anticipate  such  a  icsiill.  is  iiisiilliciciit  to  charge 
him  with  ncgligeiice. 

Ailolph  L.  Sanger,  for  pltiinliffs  ;  Jiohinmn  <t'  Svrihncr, 
for  defeh  hints. 

Wallace,  J. : 

On  or  al)out  July  17tli,  1-S77,  Ihe  defen(htnts  received 
from  phiinliffs  tit  tlie  eity  of  New  York  for  Iransportiition 
to  Pittsburgh,  J*a.,  goods  of  the  value  of  $1,710.  At  the 
time    of    reeeivino-   the   uooils  the   defendant  delivered  to 


cii.  xin. 

:i  (Icoi'cc 
•^iiiul  dol- 


■f.-u 

'"« 

ease 

ic: 

S-l. 

5.  1 

m, 

247, 

EXEMP- 
PIIOOF  — 


I'ANV. 

:wa)v/,']SSO. 


voyy  of  th(! 
iiiJi'   to   tlic 

•oviii;:  tliJit 
■r.  is  iijx)!! 

>('|>t«'il  li.i- 

ic  niitlioii- 

iiinii   froiM 

lo  cliiir^rc 


'^criJiHcr, 


rcccivod 

)oi'tiili()ii 

At  the 

^iTcd  to 


CM.   XllI.J 


IM.'Kl'OUTKD  CASKS. 


417 


plaintiffs  ;;  bill  of  hi'liiiii-,  \vlH'i'e])y  it  niiTccd  to  tniiisport 
the  u'oods,  siihjcct  to  several  eonditions,  anionu-  Avhieli  was 
one  llial  the  eonipany  should  not  he  res[)()iisil)le  for  loss  or 
dama^H'e  I)_v  lire,  unless  il  t'onld  he  shown  that  sueh  damage 
(tf  loss  oeciiiTed  Ihrouuh  the  nei'Tnieiice  or  default  of  the 
agents  of  till'  eonipany. 

On  the  17ih  of  .July,  the  ear  eontaining  the  goods  was 
dispatched  hy  defeiulaiit  fi'oni  flersey  ('i(y  for  I'ittshurgh, 
reaehiug  l*ittshurgli  ahout  1  o'cloeU  a.  m.,  July  2()th,  at 
which  time  a  moh  took  posse>sion  of  the  defendant's  prop- 
erty, including  the  car  in  ipiestion,  and  held  [lossession  un- 
til .luly  '1'1(\,  when  trooi)s  ordered  hy  the  (iovernor  of  the 
State  to  aid  the  sheriff  in  retaking  the  property  came  in 
conflict  with  the  moh,  failed  to  dispossess  the  mob,  and  the 
nioh  tired  the  pi'operty  and  thorehy  destroyed  it. 

The  delivery  of  the  hill  of  lading  hy  the  defendant,  and 
its  acceptance  hy  the  plaintiffs  at  the  time  of  the  delivery 
of  the  goods,  must  he  deemed  to  constitute  a  contract  he- 
tween  the  parties,  with  the  conditions  contained  in  the  hill 
of  lading.'"  Tliese  cases  all  hold  that  the  slii[)per  ivho  ac- 
cepts the  hill  of  lading  can  not  he  liearil  to  alleg*'  ignorance 
of  its  terms.  It  is  inmec'ssary  to  refer  to  the  cases  where 
from  the  peculiar  circunistaiices  aitending  the  acceplanee  of 
(lie  receipt  asstiit  lo  its  terms  was  held  not  to  he  implied, 
as  the  pre-ciii  v'tise  is  the  ordinary  oiu'  where  no  peculiar 
circumstances  are  slioun.  Neiiher  are  the  cases  in  point 
which  decide  that  assent  on  the  part  of  tlieshi|)per  will  not 
he  implied  io  any  condit  ions  wliich  do  not  appear  on  the  face 
of  the  hill  of  lading.  Smli  was  the  case  in  Ai/r('!<  r.  IIV.s-/- 
t'rn  I'mi'spiirliilinn  (  'otii jui iii/,''^  which  was  decidetl  on  the  au- 
thoi'itv  of  lidlii'odil  ( 'mil  jKi  III/  r.  Ma  nil  fi(rl  iiri  inj  ('diiijhiiii/:''- 

•■"  York  Co.  V.  Ci'iilnil  ilailroiid.  ;>  Willi.  Id?  O"^''"') :  I5:nik  of  K("iii;cky 
V.  Adiiiiis  i;\;.n--~  Co..  :!;>  V.  S.  171.  1  Cent.  F, ..>.;!.')  (lS7(i) :  <ii;uc  v. 
Adiiiiw.  10(1  M:i--.  .">(!,■)  (l><r,S);  MrMiliaii  V.  Mirlii:;:iii  I'ic.  \{.  Co..  Hi 
Mii'li.  711  (!Si;7):  lIo|ikiii*  v.  Wcsicoii.  f.  IJhiichl.  i!l  (_1S(!S):  Kirklainl  v. 
Diiisiii.irc.  CJ  N.  V.  171    (Is;:.). 

■I  II  lUatflif.  11  (IS7(1). 

■"-  Id  Wall.  :!is  (1S72). 

■n 


^r.'t<>;Bj»w^l!^riWWWP'Wif:lir'''9'*' 


418 


THE  CONTKACTS  OF  CAKUIKItS. 


[CII.  XI ir. 


Tlio  c'ifcct  of  the  contract  miido  hclwocii  the  jiiirtics  was 
to  impose  uixm  the  plaintiffs  the  l)ur(h'n  of  i)roving  that  tht^ 
h)ss  ^of  the  ii'ooils  by  lire  arose  from  tlie  nouliu'ence  of  tlie 
defendant  or  its  a^'ents.  Jn  Clark  r.  JJaniirc//,'"  Air.  flus- 
tice  Nklsox  says:  "  Ahhouuh  the  injnry  may  have  heen 
occasioned  by  one  of  tlio  excepted  causes  in  the  hill  of 
ladinsj;-,  yet  still  the  owners  of  the  vessel  ar(^  responsible  if 
the  injury  miulit  have  been  avoided  by  the  exei'cise  of  rcas- 
ona'oie  skill  and  attention  on  the  part  of  the  pei'sons  cm- 
l)l()yed  in  tht^  conveyance  of  the  "jfoods.  V>n\  the  onus 
proltamll  then  beiomes  shifted  u[)on  the  shippei-  to  show  the 
neji'liii'ence.''  In  Trdiisjx^r/nfidii  ('<>iiij><ni>/  r.  JJoiriicr,'^ 
the  judu'inent  of  th<'  coiu't  l)elow  was  reversed  because  the 
jurv  were  instructed  that  it  was  incumbent  u[>on  the  defend- 
ant [the  cari'ier]  to  brinir  itself  within  the  exceptions  by 
showinu"  that  it  had  not  been  guilty  of  nealiu-ence.  Other 
authorities  to  tlu^  sann-  point  need  not  be  cited,  as  the  cases 
referred  to  are  conclusive  u\nm  this  <'ourt.  'i'he  plaintiffs 
have  not  shovi'n  neu'liu'ence  on  the  ])ait  of  the  defen<lant, 
and,  therefore,  can  not  recover.  Hut  irrespective  of  any 
considerations  concerning'  the  Imrden  of  proof,  when  it  ap- 
peared as  it  did  here  that  the  lire  i)y  which  the  i)laintilis' 
ii'oods  were  destro\'ed  was  the  act  of  a  mob  eiipiu'cd  in  a 
st I'uu'iile  with  the  military  authorities  o."  tlu'  State,  without 
anvthin<>"  to  show  that  the  defendants  were  bound  from  the 
circumstances  to  anticipate  such  a  result,  the  defens(>  was 
athrmatively  estai)lished. 

The  motion  for  a  new  trial  is  denied. 


Nol'K. —  I'piiii    the  jif^l    |ir(>|io>iti(in   af  llic   siilhtlns   ill    llir    fiil  <'i;'iiiin;- 
c;isc.  sec  initr.  ij^  1(10.  101.  JOJ.  JD.i.  101.  11).").  111.  1  IJ.  1  11!.  I  If.  1  l.">.  1  hi. 
lixiii  llic  t'l'i'diid.   ipr()|i(isili()ii  of  liic  t'^illdliiis.  SCI'  (nifi .  f.i,  2l'.i.  "J.")0.  '2')\. 
I'poii  tlu;  Jiird  i)r(i[)()silioii  irf  tlic  si/lhtlius.  .••ee  initc,^  lliS.  /in.«if,  S  '2')S. 


•'■■1  12  Unw.  272  (18.-)1). 
'«  11  Willi.  121)  (1870). 


[CH.  XTII. 


rir.  XIII.] 


rXlIKPOllTICI)  CASES. 


41!> 


irtics  W!is 
r  Ihill  the 
ice  of  the 

Mr.  .his- 
liivi!  been 
ic  bill  of 
oiisihio  if 

of  rcjis- 
soiis  cin- 

llie   o/^(^s- 

show  llio 

'cause  tli(> 
ic  (Icfciid- 
'j)tioiis  li\' 
e.  Otiici- 
tlic  cases 
plaintiffs 

efeiidaiit. 
Ive  of  any 
hen  it  aji- 
l)hiint  ills' 
fanccl  in  a 
c,  without 

from  the 
'fcns(>  was 


('     fiil('j;'(,ii|M 

.  ii.').  iji;. 

111.  iT.d.  IM. 


^<  i^s.  STATUS  OF  CARUIKU  AWKU  Sl'HCIAL  COXTRACT  — 
l)i:i.AY  — I)i;sTRr(  l.ON'  of  I'ltOl'FUTV  r.Y  M()l{  — F\- 
IvMI'TlOX  FliO.M  (.OSS-WillLK  IX   TKAXSlTOiJ  DKl'OTS." 


Hat,!,  v.  Pknn-.svia  axia  liAnj;c>Ai)  Company. 

I'li'did  Sliilr.-i  (Urniit  ('nnrt.  F,  islciii  Dishii't  nf  ]'ri>iisiiln(iii(i.Jihi(i"rij,\>i^O. 
Iiirorc  iieii.  \Vii.i.i.\Ai  McIvr.NNAN.  Circiiii  .Jiiilii-c. 

1.  A  riirric!'  docs  no]  cfus"  tn  he  ;i  (•(uniiioii  ivu'i'icr  hy  re-isoii  (if  ;i  ciii!- 
i.liri  liinililiu;  lli>  ii:ii)i!;ly.  luil  "■i)lilili:ii's  suhjcr!  io  ;i!l  liis  li;i!i:!i!i('>  iiS 
i-U'-ii  ('vc'pt  l'<ir  |(i--('^  :i!i-in.Lj  IVoui  cau^'  s  se  cKccpicd  wiiicli  hiijipi".! 
wiilioiil  iii';vli,-''ii''f  (111  lii^  |iuri  urviii  tlic  jiari  (if  lii>  ^-c'i'V;m!s  ;url 
:iiii'ii;>. 

2.  Wliili'  ;i  coinmnu  carr'iM'  (muM  iioi  cy,  use  ;i  dcliiy  by  sIkins  iii^-  tliar  it 
ai'osc  from  iIk!  acts  i.l'  a  uuil),  such  a  delay  will  iDt  wiirrant  an  iiiipu- 
lalidii  ii''  K'U'li^'ciicc  -iinw  iiij.';  a  cause  ef  less  fer  wliicli  lie  is  ex- 
(ircssly  relieved  Iruiii  lialiiliiy  by  tiic  tcnii-^  e!'  Ids  contract. 

|{.  A  ciiiidilioii  ill  a  bii!  <ir  lading;  ji^ivcii  by  a  railroad  eoiiipaiiy  that  tlie 
carrier  is  not  to  be  liable  I'or  loss  or  daniap'  to  property  by  lire  or 
oilier  ca-ii;!liy  ••  wliile  ill  iraieil  or  in  depots  or  plai'cs  of  Irans-ship- 
nient."  Iirl<l.  lo  protecl  the  eonipany  from  liabiiily  where  the  properly 
was  taken  from  i|s  charive  by  a  moI>  w  iiich  t!  was  unable  to  resist  and 
which  two  day>  iii'lerw  arils  de-lroyed  it  by  lire, 

Jo/in  Fdllnii,  for  i)iaiii)i!'f,  Waiiii''^tac}\'a<iIiiVM\  ('liap- 
iiiati  liltlflh",  for  (h-fcmhint . 

McKknnan,  ,1.  : 

This  suit  was  hrono-hi  to  fccovcf  from  tlic  dcfcntlant  tlio 
value  of  ci'i'tain  wool,  delivered  to  it  at  Chicao-o  for  trans- 
portation to  I'hiladclphia.  A  jury  havinii"  itocn  waived,  tlic 
case  was  li'ied  hy  the  court  U[)on  the  evidence  suhmitted  by 
the  [lartics.  '!'lu'  followino'  fads  are  found  as  establislied  by 
the  evidence  : 

1.  The  value  of  the  o()()ds  in  controversy  was  oii  the  'I'll 
day  of  .Uily,  l-STT,  a.t  the;  i)()int  of  shii)ment,  $lS,0(i0.38,  and 
at  the  point  of  (icslinalion,  S»^(),l)72.!)7, 

1'.  The  said  Lioods  had,  in  course  of  transit  from  their 
place  of  shipment  to  their  respective  destinations,  reached 
the  citv  of   rittsburo-h  at  least  twent\-four  hours  before  the 


^' 


■'tv 


420 


TflE  CONTRACTS  (M'  CAK'IMKIIS.  [ciI.   Mil. 


J 
If 


Hiv  occmTi'd  in  said  city,  on  July  :21sl  an<l  J:.M,  1S77,  and 
were  lluMi  in  (k'fcndant's  custody  in  the  c;;rs  in  which  Ihcv 
iiad  l)ccn  shipped,  and  the  said  cars  and  tiie  said  ii'oods  wvw 
l)(    nvil  in  said  lire. 

;■).  The  d(>t'en(Iant,  a^oul  duly  !!•.  l."'??,  I'oinid  il^elf  un- 
al)ie  1(>  maintain  au'aiust  the  force  of  a  niol),  '■ntire  possession 
and  eonvrol  of  its  own  'properly,  and  tlu'  propci'ty  in  its 
cus!()d_\-,  inciudinu'  thai  of  tlie  phiintiff,  and  lo  operat(>  its 
road.  It  then  eaUed  nixai  the  pro]ier  authorities,  inclndiiiii' 
ihesiieriff  of  .Mi»"rhei!y  county,  for  assistance  and  protec- 
tion ;  a  re(|uisition  was  made  by  said  sheriff  upon  the 
(Jovernor  for  the  assistance  of  the  mililary  power  of  the 
Coninionwealtli.  In  pursuance  of  siu-h  reipiisition,  troops 
were  ordered  by  the  (iovernor  to  aid  said  sheriff  in  re-takiu!j: 
and  i  ■'-deliverinjjf  to  the  defendant  entire  possession  and  con- 
trol of  such  projx'rty,  and  to  enable  it  to  o[)erale  its  road  ; 
and  in  endeavoring  so  to  do,  said  troops,  on  fluly  "Jl,  1S77, 
came  into  conilict  with  said  mol)  and  failed  to  dispossess  the 
same,  and  innnediat<'ly  after  said  eonllict  and  finlure  the 
l)ro[)erly  in  (juestion  was  destroyed  by  tire  coinniunicated  by 
said  mob. 

4.  The  u'oods  in  (piestion  were  received  by  the  (icfend- 
ant  on  bids  of  lading  of  the  form  of  the  annexed  receipt, 
"being  on;>  of  what  is  usually  known  as  the  "  Ked  Star  I'nion 
Ivine  fast  freight  "  receipts,  with  all  and  singidar  the  condi- 
iions  therein  contaiiu'd.  'ihisbill  (d'  ladiu'ris  numbered  No. 
:.'N')(),  and  is  tiiiis  idenliiied  and  e.\hii)i!eu  as  part  of  ilse  lind- 
inu'  in  tiiis  casi'.'''' 


'ft]. 


ri 


•^"' 'I'iii'  liill  of  hiijiicj,-  ciHlaiiicMl,  ;iin'iii'j;-t  olii;'!-:;.  .lie  Tulldw  in;;- I'lindi- 
lions:  ••'I'ii-U-  llic  siiiil  I'ni'Ui  Uiic.  ninl  llic  -t'':iiii'i'i:ils.  I'liili'nail  cmii- 
paiiiiv-  aiiil  I'orw  indiiiu'  line- w  i'.li  w  l:i 'li  it  ruiincri;,  jiiid  w  liicli  icci'iNr 
aid  iiniiKTiv.  <!i:iii  no!  !;i'  liah'ic  for  \(':il<,in'"  (if  nii.-  i.i-  any  kiinl  of  !i(|iiiii.-. 
'  •','i'aKa;j'i'  111'  aii\'  l»iii(l  of  ;':la<-.  carlhrii  or  qiii'i'ii-w  .'.re.  carUoy-.  of  ari.i. 
■or  arliclc-  imckcil  in  n'iass.  slovcs.nml  siovc  fiu'ni'un'.  cas'.in^-;.  niacliin- 
<'ry.  ('iirriai;rs.  furniluri'.  niii^lcal  insircniiMhs  of  any  kiml.  |iaci;ai;i'.-  of 
I';;':;'.'.  i,r  for  rn-M  of  iron,  anil  of  ii'on  ariiclr-.  or  for  lo-s  or  iiai;ia;;'r  liy 
'.■■.  I'l. 'lii-;,  fire  orlo>-;(if  \v('L;-iil.  or  for  condition  of  lialiii;:'.  on  liay.  Iiciiip 
■  >:■  ciition :  nor  for  to,;-;  or  (ianiaii:*'  of  any  kind  on  any  arliclc  whose  hulk 
iC!|iiirc.-'   ii    U\hi'  c.\:'!ii'd  on  (  p-n  cars:  nor  for  daiiiai,('   to  pcrishaltlc 


[cm.   XIII. 

whicli  llicv 
lioods  Were 

1  ilM'ir  1111- 
'  |'()ss('s.--i()ii 
»t'ity   ill    its 

OjK'l'illc    its 

•^,  iiicliidiiii:- 
111(1   protcc- 
upoii    tlic 
wci-  of  llic 
ion,  troops 
ill  i'('-l;ikiii!x 
on  ;iii(l  con- 
ic its  roiul  ; 
y  21,  1,S77, 
possess  (he 
fiiihin'  tlic 
uiiic;i|{'(l  i»y 

llic  (Icfcnd- 
<vil  i-cci'ip1, 
St;iv  Tiiioii 
r  tlic  coiidi- 
iii'icrcd  No. 
of  \\iv  liiid- 


Inw  ill;;'  (•diiill- 
■:iili'(i;i(l  ('(1111- 
r.  Ilicli  i('C('i\r 
ll'l  111'  liqlciils. 
Ixiys  of  ;ii-i.|. 
Ill.i;^.  Ill;icliili- 
.  Iiacioincs  ul' 
HI'  i!;uii:i;;'r  hy 
oil  !iay.  lu'iiiii 
('  whii.-i'  hulk 
{<>   ncri.-liiiJili" 


III.   Mil.] 


I'NKKrOKTKI)  CASKS. 


421 


Tlic  t'orcu'oiim-  I'acis  arc  found  in  pursuance  of  llic  written 
admission  of  the  parlies  tiled  in  tlie  case.  It  is  fnrtlier 
round  : 

").  If  tl'.e  transit  of  i^oods  in  (|ii(>stioii  had  not  liccn  inter- 
rupted at  l*illsl)uruli,  ami  had  lieeii  continued  in  reirular 
course,  the  train  contaiiiinu'  them  would  have  In-en  at  a  con- 
sideral)le  distance  from  I'illshui-iih  (>astward  before  the  time 
of  the  occurrence  of  the  lire. 

(!.  AVlicn  the  train  conlaining. said  troods  reached  the  depot 
of  the  dcfeiidai'.t  in  I'ittshuruh  on  ,ialy  lil.the  hands  who 
had  conducted  it  there  left  it,  and  a  "  strike  "  of  all  the 
rei;-ular  train  hands  of  the  dereiidant  occurred  on  that  day, 
in  conseqiiciice  of  a  refusal  hy  the  defendant  to  accede  to 
their  demand  for  an  increase  of  wau'e.s, 

7.  On  the  I'Jth  of  July  there  were  .standing'  on  the  track 
ill  the  (U'liol  yard  at  I'lttshurji'li  a  nuinher  of  cars  laden  witli 
petroli'um,  aliout  one  imndred  and  tifty  yards  distant  from 
the  cars  which  contained  the  plaintiff's  ooods.  They  were 
in  the  same  relative  [xisition  on  tlie  day  when  the  tire  oc- 
curred. The  oil  cars  were  kept  in  jilace  hy  ordinary  brakes. 
The  ui'ade  of  the  road  was  deseendiny;  towards  the  froiffht 
cars  so  that  the  oil  cars  would  run  towards  the  former  by 
their  own  gravity.  At  or  befon^  the  occurrence  of  the  tire 
the  oil  cars  were  caused  to  move  down  the  grade  until 
tluy  came  in  contact  with  the  freiirht  cars,  and  they  were  all 
burned  up  tou'cther. 

■s.  On  the  I'.Uh,  2(ltli,  and  21st  of  July  freight  trains  eon- 
liiHK'd  to  be  brought  into  the  dc[)ot  yard  of  the  defendant  at 
Pitlsburgh,   bolli   from   the   east   and   west,   in  the   regular 

|>r(>|>ci'!y  of  iiiiy  kiii',1.  occa-  iuiii'd  tiy  delays  from  any  cMiisc  or  liy  cliiiiijjt'S 
of  wciitiii'i-:  nor  for  loss  or  (laiiianc  on  any  arllclt'  or  proiicrly  w  liatcvcr, 
liy  lire  or  (>:iii'r  ci'.snaliy  w  liiic  in  Irausii  orwliik'  in  depots  or  places  of 
traii--<liinin('iii.  or  a  I  depots  or  landings  at  point  of  (hdivery ;  nor  for  loss 
or  da;iia;;'e  hy  lire.  coUi-iion  or  tlie  daiiijers  of  navig'ation  wiiile  on  seas, 
rivers,  lakes  or  ■anal-.  All  jjood-;  (.r  i)roperty  under  this  hill  of  ladinjf, 
will  he  suhjeet.  at  its  o\\  ner's  eost<.  to  necessary  eoopera.ife  or  halinji'.  and 
is  to  !(,'  transported  to  tiiedepoisof  the  c<.nipanies  or  hindinu's  of  the 
sieanihoals  or  forwarding  lines  at  the  point  receipted  to. for  delivery.*" 


L'??! 


THK  CON  riiAcrs  or  CAitiiiints. 


[cir.  XIII. 


course  of  trMn>it,  iind  were  lliri'c  slojijicd  so  that  tlicic  was 
an  unusual  accuniulalion  of  li-airs  at  thai  point. 

The  court  is  r('Si)octfully  rt'(|uesl('il  iiy  plaintiff  to  Iind  a^ 
mattors  of  law  : 

1.  That  defendant's  dntv  as  common  carriers  was  to  carry 
plaintiff's  ooods  from  the  several  points  of  shipment  to 
*  *  Philadeli)hia,  the  jioint  of  delivcrv  of  all,  without 
any  unusual  or  avoidable  delay,  and  apart  from  the  s[)eeial 
conditions  in  the  hill  of  ladin;:-,  tlefendant  is  liai)le  for  l()s> 
from  any  cause  save  the  acts  of  (Jod  or  a  liuhlic  enemy. 

2.  Tliat  defendant  did  not  cease  to  l)e  common  carriers 
by  reason  of  the  conditions  in  the  l)ill  of  ladini:',  hut  con- 
tinued subject  to  all  liaiiilities  of  common  caniers,  except 
for  losses  hai)penin,u-  for  causes  enumei'ated  in  said  condi- 
tions, without  default  or  neii'liii-cnce  on  the  part  of  defend- 
ant's servants  or  employees,  while  defendant  was  actually 
discharii'inii"  its  duties  of  carryinu'  the  uoods  from  the  i)oint 
of  shipment,  in  the  usual  and  i)ro[)er  maimer. 

3.  That  the  interruption  of  the  transit  by  reason  of  IJie 
refusal  of  the  servants  of  defendant,  in  chtirii-e  of  thc'r 
freiffht  trains  on  which  plaintiff's  iioods  were  bein;r  carried, 
to  perform  their  duty,  was  a  default  on  tlu^  i)art  of  defendant. 

3  1-2  That  the  strike  and  n^fu^al  to  perform  duty  on  the 
part  of  the  men,  does  not  justify  or  excuse  the  interruption 
of  the  transit  of  plaintiff's  uoods;  ami  that  defendanfs 
election  not  to  pay  the  ten  per  cent,  additional  wanes  de- 
manded, and  in  lieu  theivof  to  allow  thi^  uoods  to  I'emain  at 
rittsburg'h,  wholly  or  jjartly  in  lh(>  control  of  persons  who 
prevented  defendant  from  "  operatinji'  its  road"  and  per- 
forming' its  contract  as  common  carriers,  makes  defendant 
liable  for  all  the  consequences,  incliidin<>' the  destruction  and 
loss  of  said  u'oods  durinu' the])eriod  that  the  transit  was  thus 
interrupted,  and  the  i)laintiff's  j)roperty  thus  wronufully 
controlled,  without  proof  of  any  other  negligence  or  mis- 
conduct on  part  of  defendant. 

4.  That  allowing  or  suffering  othei's  than  their  own  (>m- 
l)loyee.s  to  take  from  def(MuIant  the  possession  or  c(nitrol, 


Leu.  XIII. 
tlicrc  wiis 

\o  liliil  ;i< 

1.^  to  fiii'i'v 
ipincnt  lo 
I,  without 
the  s[)('ci:il 
!('  foi'  los> 
iiciiiy, 
»i»  (■;in-i('rs 
r.  l>iit   coi!- 

t'VS,    (>XC('J)i 

-aid  coiKti- 
of  (Icfciul- 
:!s  .'ictnallv 
1   the  })oi)it 

!soii  of  111,. 
l;('  of  tlicM' 
iiiir  cai-ricd, 

<l('/Vii(Iaiit. 
liity  on  llic 
ntcvnipliou 
li'fciidaiit's 

waucs  (ii- 

>  I'cniaiii  at 

crsons  who 

and  jxT- 

di'ft'iidant 
•net  ion  and 
it  was  thus 
\vi'on«rfully 
<•('  or  inis- 

r  own  0111- 
or  contro!, 


cii.  xm.] 


rXKKI'OltTKI)  CASKS. 


423 


wlicthcrin  whoh'  or  in  part,  of  phiintiff's  ooods,  and  to  use 
that  control  not  fortlie  purpose  of  furthcriii};  or  continuin"- 
the  transit  I>ut  for  tlie  purpose  of  suspendiiiir  and  [)revent- 
iiiiT  it,  was  a  (h-fauU  on  the  part  of  defenthmt. 

.').  Tliat  however  proper  it  may  have  been  for  defendant 
to  eail  on  the  pulilic  authorities  for  protection  and  assist- 
ance "  in  re-lakinu:  and  delivering-  to  defendant  the  entire 
possession  and  control  of  said  prop-rty,"  such  act  of  pro- 
priety in  no  way  justities  the  i)revious  default  in  sufferinjj; 
the  |)ossession  and  control  thereof  to  pass  out  of  their 
hands. 

().  That  tlu^  various  risks  (Miuinerated  in  said  conditions, 
which  are  assumed  hy  [)laintiff  in  relief  of  defendant's  licii- 
eral  lial)ility  and  more  especially  the  risk  "  of  tire  while  in 
transit,"  are  limited  to  losses  occurrinu- while  the  defendant 
is  enuau'cd  in  carryin<>'  the  i^oods  in  the  i)roper  discharue  of 
its  duties  under  its  contract,  and  do  n(»t  include  loss  hv  tiro 
ocHturrin^'  while  the  transit  is  suspended,  and  the  <i<)ods  in 
question  have  I)ecii  sunVred  by  tlefendant  to  pass  into  the 
])()ss('ssion  and  control  of  persons  acting  adversely  to  the 
duties  (hifendant  assumed  to  discharge. 

7.  That  it  was  gross  di'faiilt  and  negligence  on  the  part  of 
defendtmt  to  allow  frei<>ht  trains  to  conu^  into  Pittsl)ur<rh  on 
the  IDth,  2()th  and  21st  of  .luly,  under  the  circumstances  in 
the  7th  clause  of  tli(>  facts  which  the  court  is  recjuestcd  by 
plaintiff  to  tiiid  ineiitioned. 

H.  That  it  was  gross  default  sind  negligence  to  allow 
cars  loaded  with  petroleum  to  continue  to  stand  on  the  track 
under  all  the  circumstances  and  manner  and  for  the  period 
of  time  in  the  <Sth  clause  of  said  facts  mentioned. 

51.  That  defendant  is  responsible  for  the  misconduct  and 
default  of  the  |)ers()ns  whom  it  suffered  to  take  control  and 
possession  wholly  or  jointly  with  itself  of  plaintiff's  prop- 
erty, and  to  continue  in  such  control  for  the  space  of  two 
or  three  days,  during  the  pericul  of  time  while  that  control 
and  possession  continued  and  for  all  loss  resulting  from  such 
uiiseonduct. 


'■'•'^'^iitj^l'P^Sfr^ . ' 


424 


TIIK  CONTK.M   rs  or  (AI.'lMKliS, 


[rii. 


X 1 1 1 . 


10.  Oil  the  CiK'ls  :iii<l  l;i\v  Mforcstiid,  iiliiiiililT  pi'iiys  Ihc 
court  1()  ciihM-  jiid'^inciil  for  SiiO.l'T.'i.H?,  mikI  iiilci'csl  \'vuu\ 
,]{\\y  22(1,  IS77,  to  I  lie  d.iy  jiKltiinciit  is  icndcrcd. 

Answers  by  (lie  coiirl  lo  the  I'orcu'oiiiL;'  pmiiosilions  of 
law  prcsciilcti  hy  tlic  phiiiil i iTs  coiiiiscl  : 

1.  Tliis  propositidii  is  alliniicd. 

2.  'I'iiis  is  iilsd  iillirmcd. 

.'{.  As  il  wiis  the  duly  (d"  tlic  <l(d'('iid!iiit .  ;is  a  coiiiinoii 
carrier,  lo  Iransporl  1  lie  uoiids  of  (lie  plaintiff  to  their  point 
of  destination  witlioul  Mnreasonal»ie  d-day,  any  injnrious  in- 
terruption of  sucii  transporialion  liy  tlie  I'efusal  of  the  de- 
fendant's servants  to  i);'rfoi'ni  their  duty  woidd  l)e  a  lu'eaeh 
oi  duty  imputable  to  it  ;  and  for  any  loss  to  the  plaintiff 
caused  by  such  ilelay  tln^  defendant  would  be  liable  in  tlani- 
a^'es. 

3  1-2.  I  decline  to  allirni  this  proposition.  The  (evidence 
does  not  show  that  the  loss  complained  of  was  caused  bv 
the  "strike,"  nor  that  any  permissive  allowance  of  the; 
r(^tention  of  the  uoods  at  i'itlsbui'jih  can  be  imputed  to  the 
defendant.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  adniitt«'d  by  the  plaintiff 
that  the  defendiint  was  coerced  by  tin?  superioi-  power  of  a 
lawless  nu)b,  which  usurped  control  of  the  train  containiny- 
the  plaintiff's  jjjoods  and  prev(Mit(ul  the  defendant  from  ope- 
ratiuii'  its  road;  that  the  defendant  took  pionipt  ste|)s  \o 
meet  the  emern'cney  by  an  appeal  to  the  civil  authorities  for 
protection  and  assistance;  that  Ihese  authorities  with  tho 
military  fori^e  summoncMl  by  them  wci-e  i-epelled  ;  and  that 
the  train  witli  these  uoods  was  thereupon  destroyed  bv  an 
inc(Muliary  fire.  While  these  eircunistances  would  not  pro- 
tect the  defendant  airainst  a  failure  to  fullil  its  obli«iation  as 
a  common  caiTior,  yet  I  can  not  say  that  an  involuntarv 
technical  defaidt  warrants  an  imputation  of  nciiliircnce  to 
tho  defendant  touchina'  a  cause  of  loss  which  is  expressly 
excei)ted  fi'om  its  liability. 

4.  The  defendant  was  depi-ivcd  of  the  control  of  the  train 
containing  the  plaintiff's  o()ods,  and  was  prevented  from 
continuinu'  their  transit,  b\  a  force  it   was  unal)le  to  resist. 


f  II.   Mil. 

M'lIVS    ||i(. 
•>!    (Vdiii 

ilioiis    of 


I'ii'  pitiiii 
I'ioiis  iii- 
llic  (U>. 
!i  Itrciicli 

i)iiiiii(irr 

ill  (l.'iiii- 
cvidciicc 

lliscd  l)y 
'  <»f  the 
(I  fo  tlic 
pl.'iiiitiff 
wcr  of  ii 
>iitaiiiiiii>- 

I'OIU    ()|)(>- 

slcps  to 
rifics  for 
with  llu! 
111(1  that 
(I  l)V  ail 
not  pro- 
'atioii  ;is 
•  luiitary 
riMU'c  to 
xnrcsslv 

lie  train 
'd  from 
1)  resist. 


fir.  XIII.] 


rM!Kl'()I!TKI>  TASKS, 


.{•->:> 


It  can  not  ln' lii-M  ri'>;i:)ii.il»|i'  foi' lln'  piirpo-ic  ol"  the.  ino'», 
alllioii.iiii  the  act  of  tiic  inolt  in  iiitcrccptinj;  llic  tran^poiia- 
t ion  of  liic  ^oods  iiiiulit  siil»j('iM  tlic  (Icfciidant  lo  <'oiiipciisa- 
tion  to  the  piainlil'f  for  any  loss  siistiiincd  liy  him  hv  I'casoii 
of  such  interrupted  transit  of  his  ^•oods.  I  decline,  there- 
fore, to  atlirin  this  proposition. 

.''>.  This  i)ropositioii  is  ;itiiriiied,  with  the  (|iialilicatioii  that 
I  do  not  say  that  the  del'eiid'iiit  was  in  dcd'ault ,  otherwise 
than  as  iind  f(»r  the  reason  stated  in  the  answei'  to  proposi- 
tion .'{  1-1'. 

(I.  I  decline  to  allirin  this  proposition.  The  exception  in 
the  hill  of  lading:'  is  that  the  ciii'rier  shall  not  he  lialile  "for 
loss  oi'  (laniauc  on  any  article  or  properly  whatever,  l)y  tiro 
or  other  casnalty  while  in  transit  or  while  in  depots  or  places 
of  Iraiis-shipinent .'"  The  eiiiiia^icnient  of  the  carrier  is  to  as- 
snnie  the  custody  of  the  property  intrusted  to  him  at  tho 
point  of  shipment,  and  to  deliver  it  al  the  place  of  destina- 
tion, and  the  obvious  intent  as  well,  I  think,  as  the  clear 
import  of  the  exception  is  to  pKttecl  him  airainst  the  conse- 
(|uences  of  tin^  durinii-  the  continuance  of  his  duty  as  a  cur- 
rier. His  (|ualiti('d  lial)ility  is  co-extensive  with  this  duty, 
and  he  forfeits  its  protection  only  by  some  fault  of  his  own 
in  connection  with  the  casualty  to  which  the  exception  re- 
fers. Nor  can  I  regard  it  as  will. in  the  reason  of  the  ex- 
ception to  hold  that  it  is  eliminated  from  the  contract  when 
the  pro|)erty  in  the  carrier's  eharire  is  wrested  from  him  by 
a  hostile  force  which  he  is  unable  to  resist,  and  it  is  con- 
sumed in  an  incendiary  tire,  althoiiuh  his  exclusion  from  tho 
possession  and  control  of  it  may  last  for  two  days  before  it 
is  thus  destroyed. 

7.  J  decline  to  alHrin  this  |)roposition. 

8.  1  decline  lo  alHrm  this  proposition  for  tho  roasons  that 
tho  petroleum  ears  were  presumably  in  tho  usual  and  projior 
place  for  them  in  the  depot  yard  :  that  they  were  at  a  safe 
distance  from  the  cars  containinir  the  plaintiff's  iroods,  and 
wore  there  secured  by  mechanical  appliances  usually  em- 
ployed for  that  pur[)()se  ;  that  they  might  lawfully  I)o  kept 


I 
I 


42(! 


tin;  (■()nti!A(  ts  of  cAitniKus.  [cm.  jom. 


i  '- 


tluTo,  ami  lliiit  (licir  rt'iiioval  into  coiiImcI  uilli  the  oIIkm"  cars 
was  1  he  act  of  the  iiicciuliai'v  iiioh  wliicli  liiid  for  two  days 
iR'forc  inaiiitaiiic(|  a  forcible  inaslcry  of  the  situation. 

S>.   J  (Iccliiic  to  allinu  this  proposition. 

U|)oii  liic  whoK'  case  I  am  of  tiic  opinion,  and  so  find, 
tliat  the  h»ss  complained  of  was  caused  l»y  tire  while  the 
plaintiff's  "oods  wcic  in  transit  hy  the  defendant  within  the 
ineanin<r  of  the  exception  in  the  hill  of  lading-:  that  th(!  de- 
fendant is  not  s'lown  to  have  heen  liiiillv  of  anv  ney  litre  nee; 
hy  which  the  ellii  eiwy  of  the  exception  is  in  any  wise  im- 
l)airi'd  :  and  hence  that  the  plaintiff  is  not  enlitUMi  to  recover. 

.Indirment  will,  tiii-refoi-e,  he  cnlei'cd  in  faxoi'of  the  de- 
fendant. 

XoTK. —  I'pdii  llic  jirst  prnpii-ilioii  of  tlic   siillnlms  in    ilic   fiu'co-dinj;' 
case.  SCI'  (////(■.  ^s<  l(i!i.  1 10. 

l'|iip|l  llic  f^'Cimd  aiKl  third  piopusilidll^  in  llic  sijlliilin::,  M't'    mile.  !;j    l;!s. 

■2:>7. 


§  J.")!).  Kxriii;ss  coMi'AN'Y  —  -KoiMv  \i{i)i:ir'  —  xi:(;i.i- 

(JHNCK  — CONDriloN    IN    ItKrKII"!' AS  TO  \AUK  Ol' 
AHTK'I.i:  — Dl'l'V  (»!•'  SIIII'I'KI!. 


fi; 


(lAi/r  V.  Ada.ms  Ivxi'KKss  Company. 

Hiiprnnc  Cnitrt.  nf  the  Dhlrict  of  ('uhtinhin,  Sei>ti'mhrr.  1>^7!). 


Hon.  l)Avii>  1{.  (AiriTKi;.  Chief  .Insticc. 
••     Andwkw  Wvi.ik. 
'•     AiiTiii  It  McAiMiii  w. 

'•       A.   1$.   llAdNKW. 

'•     Wai.tki!  S.  <  'ox. 

'•      ClIAltl.KS   1'.  Ja.MKS. 


AssociiiU'  .Iiistii'c; 


].  All  express  eoinii.Tnyiipoii  rcceiviiifj  tlirce  piicka^es  for  tiiiiisi)oitiilioii 
gave  the  sliipper  a  rcccipf  in  which  it  was  staled  tliat  llic  coiniiaiiy 
were  •■  forwarders  only  :"'  Jlrhl.  tliat  these  words  were  ineffcetiial  to 
restrict  its  liahility.  Tlic  law  deteniiiiies  the  character  of  the  occupa- 
tion of  exprcssineii;  it  assij^ns  to  them  the  liahililics  of  coniinon  car- 
riers, and  this  stulns  is  not  affected  hy  an  agreenieiil  lietwecn  the  par- 
ties that  thcv  arc  not  carriers  hut  "forwarders." 


II.   MM  I. 
ImM-  Cill'S 

i\<>  (lavs 


so  find, 
lilc  tlit> 
hill  tli<> 

till!   (If- 

li,tr*'ii('(! 
isc  iiii- 
i'»'('«)\t'r. 
the  dc- 

fiirco((iiii_i- 


<ir.  XIII.'] 


iNitKi>oirn:i)  camkh. 


xi:<;i.i- 

M  !•:  OK 


lortalioii 
'>ini)aiiy 
'cIiimI  to 

<)C('lll)il- 

loii  car- 
tlie  par- 


•J.  'I'lic  f(iiili-Mcl   III'  a    I'oiiHiioii   caiiitT  wliicli    >ll|iiilalcs  I'l 


I'iniii  rc-|(nn-iliilily  for  ihc  n-iilN  (.!'  lii*  iic;ili;;ciiiM'  is  vuiil  asay,iiii 
pnlilic  |)iilicy. 


427 


■inpliiiii 


1-1 


:(.  'rill- in'ovlsloii  111  a  r i|il  j^ivcri  hy  an  cxii 


If-^s  coiiiliaiiy  Ihal  l|ii>  hltlc 


will   iKil  he  iialilc  licy I  a  rcilaiii  >iim   if  liit-  jii-l  :iiii|  ir 

(lie  |iii>|M'ily  lie  iiui  (Icclari'il   al  llif  liini' nf  ijn-  s| 


limit  llic  lialiiliiy  (if  llic  carrier  a-  an  iii-mcr. 


Ill'  \aliii'  iif 


liliiiiciil.  1-i  valid  "() 


4.  lllir  a  (■(HidirKHi  of  llii- cliaraclci' whirji  seeks  in  ciivfl' llic  lie^'li^^eliee 
(if  the  cairier  is  vniij. 

Ti. 'i'lii- oiiiissidii  of  one  (lealiiii;  wi'.li  a  coiiiiiKm  carrier  to  advi-e  liiin  as 
lo  llic  value  (if  the  ariicic  iirescnted  for  carriaiii  .  and  ilial  it-  actual  Is 
;;i'caici'  lliaii  its  aiijiarcnl  \alnc.  will  nut  alfcci  Id-  li^liN.  unless  ii 
jiisiilicd  the  carrier  in  ado|iiinn'  the  conr-c  of  condiicl  ilirmiiili  which 
the  loss  occurred. 


The  fiicts  apiicar  in  tiic  ()|)ini()ii. 

A.  »S'.  J  line  Mild  iliijiiiiild  FnnduU  for  phlililirf  ;  IT.  />'. 
Wd)})  i'of  (h'f('ii(hmls. 

flAMKs,  ,1.,  (h'livci't'd  Ih"  opinion  of  Ihc  coiift  : 

This  cause  comes  hefe  on  exceptions  to  tlie  ilistnielions 
<!;iven  to  the  jiifv  al  the  trial. 

The  hill  of  exceptions  sliows  that  plaintiffs  produced  ev- 
idence that  in  .laniiai'\ .  l.ST"),  the  defendant  received  from 
them  three  paekajz'es,  two  for  delivery  in  New  York  and  one 
for  delivery  in  I'hiladelphia  ;  thiit  on  reeeiviiis:  them  tlu^ 
Jiii'eiit  of  the  express  eomptiny  pive  for  eatli  paekiijio  ii  hill 
of  ladino-  which  .'ontaiiKMl,  with  a  difference  only  as  to  tlio 
consignees,  this  clause:  "  IJeceived  from  ?il.  \\'.  (ialt,  liro. 
&  (^).,  one  box,  value  asked,  not  uiveii  ;  for  which  this  eom- 

})!iny  eharo('s  ;  marked  — ,  etc.  ;  which  it  is  mulu- 

ally  iio'ri'cd  is  to  he  forwarded  to  our  aoeney  iietirest  or  most 
convonieiit  to  destiiiiition  only,  Jind  there  delivered  to  other 
l)arties  to  complete  the  trans]»ortation.  It  is  part  of  the 
eoiisideriitioii  of  this  contract,  and  it  is  iiuroed  tlitit  the 
stiid  express  company  jire  forwarders  only,  and  tire  not  to  he 
held  liable  or  ivsponsible  for  tiny  loss  or  dtimago  to  .Siiid 
l)roperty  while  beino-  conveyed  by  the  ciirriers  to  whom  the 
stime  may  be  by  said  express  eomptmy  intrusted,  or  arisiiii^ 
from  the  danocrs  of  niilroiids,  ocetm  or  river  Hiivipition, 
steiim,  tire  in  stores,  depots  or  in  iransit,  letiktigc,  I)re!ikitu(', 


428 


THK  COXTKACTS  OF  CAUniKKS. 


[Cll.  XIM. 


or  from  any  vmisv  wliMtovcr,  unless  in  every  ease  Hie  same 
be  proved  to  have  occurred  fron.  llie  fraud  or  <;tos,s  neii,li- 
gcnce  of  said  express  company  or  their  servants  ;  nor  in  any 
event  shall  the  holder  hereof  demand  l)eyond  (he  sum  of 
fifty  dollars,  at  wiiich  the  article  forv,ar(h-(l  is  herel.v  valued, 
unless  olher^\•ise  herein  exprcsscvl,  or  uidess  specially  in- 
sured l>y  Ihem  and  so  si)ecilied  in  (his  i-eceipl  :  which  insur- 
ance shall  conslilute  the  limit  of  ihe  liahii'ty  of  (lie  Adams 
Express  Company," 

That  the  three  r(>ceipts  ihiis  sii^-ned  by  the  aiitMil  of  the 
company  were  contained  in  a  book  furnished  by  the  com- 
pany to  the  plaintiffs  ;  that  excepting:'  the  charire  for  fi-eiaht 
the  blaidvs  therein  were  tilled  uj)  oy  plaintiffs'  bookkeeper 
l)efore  they  were  siancd  :  that  no  (juestion  was  asked  and 
nothinjr  was  said  by  either  party  as  to  theconlenls  or  value 
of  the  |)aeka_u-es  ;  that  the  ex[)ress  comp.iny  placed  the  three 
paekaires  in  a  car  set  apart  for  its  use  attached  to  the  train 
of  the  Haltimoreand  Potomac  Kailroad  Company,  for  trans- 
portation to  the  consignees  at  New  Voi'k  and  Pniir.delphia  ; 
that  while  on  its  Avay  to  15aItimore  this  train  collided  at 
Bennin.o's  Station  with  another  train,  whereupon  the  express 
company's  car  with  o.hei-s  eau,-:ht  lire  from  the  locomotive 
and  was  burned,  together  with  the  packai^cs  in  (jUestion  and 
a  considerable  nuaniity  f>f  valuable  "oods  and  i  iarn'c  amount 
of  nioiiey  ;  that  this  collision  was  caused  b\  the  ncLiiiu'ence 
of  the  switch  tenders  in  the  emphn  ui'  the  Ualiimoi'c  and 
Potomac  Kailroiul  Company  at  Uemiinu's,  win,  had  opened 
the  switch  for  another  train  to  pass  on  to  the  sidinu-  and 
there  remain  until  the  ni<:ht  expros  fi-oiu  Washington  should 
l)ass,  and  had  failed  to  chan^u'e  it  back:  that  when  tin-  en- 
gineer cau,i>ht  sin-ht  of  the  switch-taravt  at  lienniim's,  then 
only  thirty  yards  distant,  the  train  was  runninti'  about  thirty- 
live  miles  an  hour,  and  notwithstanding'  his  best  efforts  to 
check  its  speed,  passed  on  to  the  sidinu'  with  such  monuMit- 
um  that  it  telescoped  half  the  train  therv' standing:-,  killing 
the  postal  clerk  and  injuring  several  other  persons;  that 
Avithin  live  iinnutes  the  train  was  on   lire  from   end  to  end, 


("11.   XIII.] 


UNKKl'OKTKI)  CASKS. 


42!) 


!iii(l  !i  liiru-(^  jinioiiiit  of  ii()f)ds  in  Ihc  c'.\[)ivss  conipany's  car 
was  ill  (■()iis(Mni('iic{'  (Icstrovtjtl. 

The  |)l!iintiiTs  fui'ilu;r  iiitroihiccd  evidence  leiuliiiji- to  show 
that  of  the  packaiics  shipped  by  theWi,  one  contained  silvcv- 
phite,  coin,  iSi.c..  anioiinliniL>:  in  vahie  to  $()l'!l.;)S,  another  an 
amethyst  rin<;-  worth  81:^,  and  a  third  a  silver  spoon  worth 
$<S  ;  tliat  !t  day  or  two  after  tlie  collision,  a  barrel  was  ex- 
hibited to  one  of  the  plaii-'iffs  by  tin-  ap-nt  of  the  company, 
as  containinii'  the  debris  of  all  the  packau'ss  carried  in  the 
<'()iin)aiiy's  ear  ;  that  no  part  of  this  debris  was  delivered  to 
the  [)Iaintiffs,  the  aji'ent  statinii.-  that  he  was  instrtuted  to 
send  it  to  the  central  otHce  in  N\'W  York. 

On  eross-exainiiiation  of  i)laintiffs'  witnesses,  some  (pios- 
tion  was  raised  whether  the  tender  of  the  switch  at  Beiminji's 
was  in  the  employ  of  the  Baltimore  and  l*()toinae  Railroad 
or  of  the  Washiniiton  City  and  Point  Lookout  Kailroad  ; 
but  it  was  stated  that  he  had  [)reviously  served  at  that  switch, 
and  that  the  switch  itself  Ix'lonji'cd  to  the  BaUiinore  and  Po- 
tomac Railroad. 

On  the  part  of  the  defendant,  evidence  was  introduced  to 
«<li()W  that  the  c<Mi'paiiy"s  aii'ent  sent  t'  e  whole  of  the  debris 
to  the  central  otlicc  in  New  York,  forwarding' also  the  de- 
tiiiled  stateiiKMit  of  plainlitT^'  uoods,  am!  that  the  licneral 
audit  in  New  York  took  cham'e  of  the  debris  and  (leliv(>red 
the  silver  fiMnid  in  it  to  one  Hart  of  Xev,-  ()rl(>aiis,  who 
claimed  to  have  shipped  i(.  The  tlefi  ndant  further  offered 
eviileiice  to  show  thai  there  was  nothinu,'  to  indicate  that 
lilainliffs'  packages  wei'c  of  any  special  value. 

It  thus  appea'-s  by  evidence  oiTercd  l»y  the  (h'fendant,  and, 
therefore,  by  admission,  either  that  the  plaintiffs'  jiackim-es 
were  uttei'ly  destroyed  at  tlictime  of  the  collision,  and  fai'ed 
bv  that  reason  to  reach  tlu'lr  destination,  or  th;;t  the  whole 
()!•  such  part  of  them  as  were  saved  and  forwarded  were  ile- 
livered  to  some  othei'  party. 

ri)on  this  evidenc(!  the  defendant  askeil  the  court  to  in- 
struct the  jury  as  follows: 


430 


TIIK  CONTltACTS  OF  CAI!I!IK1!S. 


[Cir.   XHI. 


•A 
L 


J  St.  "  'riiiit  tlie  cxc't'utioii  of  tlio  express  receipt  ov  liill  of 
l:idin<^'  of  tlie  Adiiiiis  Ivxjjress  C'onipiiiiy  ;iiul  its  iieeeptiince 
l>y  the  plaintiffs  eoncurrently  with  the  (h-livery  ami  receipt 
of  the  i)ro|)erty,  coiislitule  a  special  contract  helween  the 
parties  for  tlu' ciirriaire  of  iheuoods  ;  and  Ihe  riii'hts  and 
liuhilities  of  the  i'es[)ective  [)arties  are  to  he  pncrned  therehv, 
and  the  conditions  and  exemptions  therein  set  forth  are  to 
])e  hindinii' on  ea<'h."  Tliis  iiistrnclion  was  ;:ranted  with  the 
followinii"  proviso:  "•  Presided,  that  iiie  jury  do  r.ot  lind 
that  the  loss  of  the  packaucs  was  occasioned  l>\'  the  u'i'oss 
ne_ii:li;i'ence  of  t lie  del'enuant .'" 

2d.  *'  If  the  jnry  Ix-IIcnc  froni  the  evidence  that  at  the 
time  when  the  packavi-s  in  (jneslion  wcr(Mlelivered  hv  |)lain(- 
iffs  to  defendant  for  carriau'e,  the  said  defendant  or  its 
servants  or  au'ents  asked  of  said  DlaintilTs  the  value  of  said 
l)aeka_u-es,  and  that  the  sai<l  plaintiffs  refused  to  i:iv(>  such 
value  and  concealed  the  same,  so  (hat  the  said  defendant 
as  carriers  were  ianoi'ani  of  the  value  thereof;  then  the  said 
plaintiffs,  if  entitled  to  recover  at  all,  can  only  recover  in 
this  action  the  sum  of  lil'ly  dolhu's,  with  interest  from  tiie 
time  of  the  said  loss.""  This  insti-uclion  was  uivcii  with  the 
(pialiHcations  attached  to  the  first. 

;5d.  "That  it  was  thedutyof  the  plaintiffs,  at  the  time 
of  the  delivery  of  the  packau'es  in  (jucstion  (o  the  Adams 
Express  Companv  under  the  terms  of  the  contraci.  to  state 
the  ^ahie  of  said  packaji-es,  if  tlicy  desired  '-i  'ase  of  loss 
to  recover  a  sum  exceedinu'  iifty  (1mI1:ii's.""  This  instruction 
was  o-iven  with  tlie  ijualilicalion  alrea<!y  slated. 

4th.  "That  iirespcclive  of  tlie  tei-nis  of  the  conli-act  rc- 
([uirini:-  the  sliipp  v  to  stale  the  \alue,  or  in  default  of  such 
stat(>ment  limitir  the  liabilities  of  the  con)i)an\  to  the  sum 
of  Iifty  dollars,  li  was  inciiml)ent  upon  the  plaintiffs  to  dis- 
close the  value  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  packajre  con- 
tained articles  of  ii,-re:!t  value,  sucji  as  silver,  etc."'  This 
instruction  was  also  li'iven  with  (he  same  tjualilieation. 

By  their   vertliet   for  an    anminit    lai^iclv  exceedini>-   tln^ 


jr.  xiri. 


CU.  XIII.] 


I' \ U K I'OIIT I :  I )  C.S SKS . 


431 


r  l)ill  of 

I'cccipt 
■cell  tlic 
its  ;iii(l 
lH'r('I)\-. 
1  iirc  to 
wilh  tlic 
i<«i  lind 
ic  l!l'()ss 


liinil   proijosod   in  the  Itill  of  ladiim',  tlu'   jury   uoccssiu'ih^ 
foiiiul  that  the  loss  was  occasioned  hy  the  m' 


OSS  neyliuence 
of  the  defendant. 

We  do  not  |)i()j)os('  to  at'opt  the  mechanical  method  of 
(onsiderinjf  these  insti  nctioiis  and  exceptions  xr^riafihi,  since 
the  issnes  raised  hy  them  can  better  he  disposed  of  l)y  a 
statement,  of  the  general  principles  on  which  this  court  has 
aii'HH'd. 


rndoul)tedIy   a   written   inslrnment   sitrned  only  by  ( 


)ne 


iiili"    party    does    not    become    tecimically     a    i)art\"    to    tl 


party,  but  accepted  and  acted  upon  by  the  other,  may  fur- 
nish (he  terms  of  a  nuitual  contract.     Although  the  accept- 

le 

writing,  he  assents  to  its  terms  as  th<'  terms  of  his  unwritten 
agreenu'iit,  and  thus  the  same  terms  are  agreed  upon  by 
both.  Jn  this  way  the  plaintiffs  and  the  defendant  actually 
entered  into  a  s|)i>cial  contract  upon  the  terms  of  the  bill  of 
lading  given  by  (he  latter,  liut  it  does  not  follow  that  all 
of  the  terms  thus  actually  agreed  upon  aVe  lawful.  If  any 
of  them  constitute  an  agnienu'nt  which  such  pai'ties  are  not 
permitted  by  the  law  to  mak(%  they  are  sim[)ly  yoid  and  do 
not  goxei'u  the  rights  or  obligations  of  those  parties. 

In  applying  this  priiiciule,  avc  observe  in  the  lirst  place 


that  1 


le  recei 


pt  iiefore  us   ;ti|)ulates  that  the  Adams  Expre; 


('om|)any  are  fonrnrili  rs  only.  I'ut  it  is  to  be  gathered 
from  the  e\  idence  .-et  out  in  the  i)ill  of  exceptic'is  and  from 
the  vei'dict  tlsat  they  were  found  to  be  actually  carriers, 
using  as  their  ins!rumen1:dit y  of  transportation  tin'  I'oads 
and  servants  and  trains  of  the  Ilaltimore  and  Potomac  Kail- 
road  Company.  'i"he  law  determines  the  chiU'acter  of  this 
business  and  occupation,  and  it  assigns  t(^  the  Adams  Kx- 
p;'ess  company  the  slahis  of  conunon  carriers,  and  we  hold 
that  this  sidlxs  is  not  affected  by  an  agreement  of  parties 
that  they  are  not  carriers  but  only  forwarders. 

In  the  next  place  the  bill  of  lading  jirovides  that  the  ex- 
l)ress  company  "  are  not  to  be  lu'ld  liable  or  res[)()nsil)lc  for 
any  loss  or  danuiges  "'  to  the  property  received  by  them 
"  from  any  cause  whatever,  unless  in  every  ease  the  same 


m 


432 


TIIK  CONTRACTS  OF  CAKUIKIJS. 


[ciI.  XIII. 


be  })r()\('<l  In  have  occurred  from  llic  friiiul  or  uro!^!^  iicu'li- 
iiciu'c  of  said  cxpics.s  conipanv  or  their  sci'vaiits  ;  "  and  il 
then  undertakes  lo  limit  tlie  resj)oii.sihility  of  the  compaiiv 
1)\'  a  further  condition  that  even  in  case  of  h)ss  or  chimaiic 
hvtiie  fraud  or  jii'oss  neuliuenco  of  tlu^  company,  the  holder 
of  the  receipt  sliall  not  "  (h'lnand  heyond  the  sum  of  liftv 
'olhirs,  at  which  the  article  forwarded  is  hereby  valued,  un- 
:(  ss  otherwise  herein  e.\i)ressed,  or  unless  specially  insured 
by  them  and  so  specilied  in  this  receii)t.'"  It  was  insisted 
in  the  arirument  on  i)ehalf  of  tin;  defendant  that  the  leual 
effcH't  and  intendment  of  this  clause  is  simi)ly  to  provide  in 
the  absence  of  a  s[)ecial  declaration  of  value  for  a  rule  of 
valuation  :  and  that  it  is  e()m|)eteiit  for  parties,  even  where 
the  liability  arises  from  uross  negligence,  to  agree  upon  the 
fact  of  value.  Authorities  Avere  cited  Avhich  have  given 
this  interpretation  to  the  clause  in  (piestion  ;uid  have  recog- 
nized the  validity  of  the  agreement  as  thus  inter[)reted. 
The  tirst  (piestion,  then,  relates  to  the  i)roper  interpretation 
of  the  clause;  and  we  hold  that  inasmuch  as  this  condition 
undertakes  to  provide  against  liability  for  loss  oi-  damage 
arising  from  gross  negligence,  the  legal  effect  of  that  ]>art 
of  it  which  sjxaks  of  value  is  not  to  ascertain  and  adjust 
the  value  of  property,  but  to  limit  the  damages,  the  peiialtv 
to  which  the  law  would  hav(>  subjected  the  carrier  on  ac- 
count of  his  fault.  Iiy  tendering  .-uch  a  condition  the  car- 
I'ier  substanliallv  says  to  the  shipper.  "  I  am  awai'elhat  the 
law  would  hold  nw  r(>s|)onsibIe  for  the  actual  value  of  ll'.i^ 
article,  althoiigii  ii()t  disclosed  to  mv,  in  case  it  should  Ix' 
lost  or  destioyed  by  im'ans  of  my  gi'oss  negligence  ;  Itut  I 
propose  to  exempt  myself  from  so  much  of  that  liabilit\-  as 
ma}'  exceed  fifty  dolh-rs,  by  assuming  that  the  actual  dam- 
age to  you  occasioned  by  my  fault  is  only  lift  v  dollars  ; 
and  this  I  i)roposetodo  Ity  assuming  that  the  article  is  worth 
only  fifty  dollars."  This  is  not  in  good  faith  a  valuation  of 
property.  Its  legal  effect,  and.  therefore,  its  legal  intent,  is 
to  restrict  the  measure  of  damages  i-ecovei-abie  in^case  of 
negligence,  ami  thus  to  ext-mpt  the  wrong-doer  from  a  part 


[(•!!.  XIII. 


(11.   XIII.] 


IMfKl'OlITKI)  CASKS. 


4;i; 


OSS    iic^li- 

:  ■■  Mild  il 
<'()in|)iiiiy 

!•    (lillll.'lLlC 

he  li()i<!cr 
11   of   iif'tv 
iliicd.  1111- 
y  insured 
s  insisted 
the   Iciiiil 
)rovid('  ill 
a  rule  of 
veil  where 
'  upon  tlic 
ave  iiivcii 
ivc  reeojjf- 
tci'i  )!•(>(  (>d. 
rpri'latioii 
condition 
ir  daiiiaiic 
lliat  ])ai'f 
nd   adjiis! 
ic  penally 
<•!•  on   ae- 
1    liie  eai- 
•cdiat  ll:e 
ic    of  (hi- 
dioiild    l)e 
•«>:    hut    I 
ialiility  as 
iial  dani- 
•  dollars: 
I-  is  worlli 
uali(»n  of 
inteiii,  is 
U'case  of 
)ni  a  part 


of  his  rcs[)()nsil)ilit;y  ;  and  as  a  matter  of  intcrprctatioii,  the 
meaning  of  the  chiuse  which  operates  only  in  this  way  is  not 
to  he  ehangi'd  liy  giving  to  it  an  arhitrary  name.  Jt  may  he 
added  that  hy  its  terms  the  clause  in  ((uestion  is  to  he  ap- 
plied as  well  in  cases  of  losses  hy  the  fraud  of  the  company 
as  in  cases  of  losses  hy  its  gross  negligence ;  and  that 
the  rule  of  interpretation  must,  therefore,  he  uniform  in 
hoth  cases.  It  would  certainly  he  a  very  remarkahh;  inter- 
pretation which  should  hold  that  this  clause  only  meant  in 
good  faith  to  provide  an  ascertainment  of  the  value  of  the 
proiiertv,  in  case  it  should  he  inaue  .vay  with  hy  the  fraud 
of  the  caiTier. 

We  hold,  then,  that  the  intei  t  and  operation  of  this  coji- 
dition  is  merely  to  exempt  the  express  company  from  a  part 
of  its  ohligations  as  a  common  carrier,  in  case  the  damage 
done  to  the  shipper  hy  its  fault  shall  exceed  the  amount  of 
fifty  dollars.  If  we  are  right  in  this  conclusion,  we  have 
next  to  consider  whether  a  common  carrier  can  stipulate  for 
a  partial  exemption  from  his  full  liahility  in  eases  of  gross 
negligence. 

We  are  aware  that  in  some  of  the  States,  notahly  in  some 
whit'h  possess  or  perhajis  arc  possessed  hy  vast  railroad  c(H- 
porations,  tlu^  loctrine  of  exemption  has  heen  carried  to 
extremes  ;  hut  if  this  court  wer»'  disposed  to  follow  such  a 
lead,  it  is  ))rohihited  to  do  so  l)y  the  rulings  of  its  sui)erl()r, 
the  Suiireine  (^ourt  of  the  United  States.  In  Railroad 
(Jompanif  v.  Locktvood,'^''  that  court,  after  the  most  exhaus- 
tive examination  of  American  and  English  authorities,  have 
laid  down  the  princii)le  hy  which  wo  must  he  guided  ;  namely, 
that  a  common  carrier,  whether  of  goods  or  passengers,  can 
not  stijiulate  for  exemption  from  responsihility  for  the  neg- 
ligence of  himself  or  his  servants.  It  is  true  the  (|uestion 
immediately  hefore  the  court  related  to  the  carriage  of  pas- 
sengers :  l)ut  it  iiievitalilv  involved  the  discussion  and  deter- 
mination  of  principles  of  puhlic  policy  and  of  hiw  which 
apply  eoinpletcly  to  the  husiness  of  common   carriert?  of 

•""I?  Willi.  :w  (18-:$). 
28 


4;i4 


THK  ('»)\TKA(TS  OF  (AHUIICIJS. 


[CH.   XIII. 


1 

1 

goods,  cspcciiiUy  of  common  curriers  bv  niilway.  \Vc 
would  have  held  and  enforced  that  doctrine  without  such 
superior  authority.  We  now  feel  disposed  as  well  as  bound 
U>  iipply  th(^  principle  on  which  that  case  turned  in  all  the 
fullness  of  its  spirit.  We  hold,  then,  that  tlu;  principle  of 
law  which  for  considerations  of  public  welfare  forbids  :i 
common  carrier  to  barjiain  in  particular  cases  for  comj)letf 
exemption  from  responsil)ilily  for  a  violation  of  his  dutio. 
forbids  him  to  inifjair  his  obligations  to  the  (!ommunity  liy 
I»ai'giiining'  in  particular  cases  for  an  (exemption  from  a  con- 
siderable part  of  that  responsibility.  The  liround  on  which 
the  nde  is  based,  that  even  llu'  shipper's  perfect  (;onsent  can 
!:()t  wholly  reliev(!  the  carrier,  is  that  the  object  which  ae 
midertakes  to  rej^ulatc  by  contract  is  not  his  own  but  a  pub- 
lic ri<2,ht.  Practically  every  kind  of  common  carrier  !)ccomes 
an  agency  whi(h  the  rest  of  the  community  are  comix'lled  to 
cm})l()y,  and  with  little  in(|uiry  as  to  his  peculiar  titness.  in 
other  words,  he  ac(iuires  in  some  deirree  the  position  of  a 
monopoly.  And  if  tiiis  be  •<  sutlicient  reason  for  im|)osin<>- 
peculiar  duties  and  exactions  upon  ordinary  common  car- 
ricr«,  it  ap[)lies  with  incomi)arably  li'natcr  force  to  railroads 
and  to  earrier.s  who  l)y  employiuir  thosi-  roads  as  instrumen- 
talities of  their  transj)ortati(>M  make  those  instrumentalities 
their  own.  They  are  universally  authorized  to  appropriate 
privale  jiroixuly  on  the  very  uround  that  such  appropriation 
i's  for  the  pul)lic  use.  And  if  they  are  understood,  in  con- 
templation of  law,  to  be  occu[)ied  in  usinir  and  manauin^ 
property  for  public  welfare,  their  business  of  transportation, 
which  is  the  only  use  to  which  they  apply  the  property  >o 
;ipi)r<)priated,  must  be  understood  to  be  carried  on  for  the 
public  welfare.  Their  obligation  to  exercise  not  onlv  a  rea- 
sonable but  a  very  high  degree  of  care  in  that  business,  l)e- 
comes,  therefore,  a  duty  to  the  public,  and  can  neitlu^r  bt;  put 
uside  nor  imi)aired  by  the  consent  of  individual  meml>er>  of 
the  community.  No  single  person  is  allowed  to  agree*  that 
such  a  carrier,  or  that  any  carrier  who  owes  a  public  duty, 
may  with  impunity  be  negligent  in  his  case,  for  tin;  reason 


CH.  xm. 


<|[.  XIIl.j 


UNUKI'OUTKl)  CASKS . 


485 


!iy.  We 
out  sufli 
as  hoiiml 
II  ill!  the 
iicipic  of 
foil)i(ls    ;i 

(•OlllJ)l(.'t(' 

is  (liiti('>, 
1  unity  l»y 
)ni  a  I'oii- 
on  wliicli 
uscnt  cMii 
which  '.R' 
ut  ii  pul)- 
•  !)(('onu's 
ipcllcd  to 
ncss.  Ill 
it  ion  of  a 
iniposinji' 
nion  car- 
railroads 
istrumcn- 
KMitalitics 
i|)roprial(' 
•o[)riation 
J,  in  con- 
luanaii'ihii' 
)<)rtat,ion, 
opcrty  >o 
»  for  the 
ilv  a  rca- 
incss,  he- 
Kir  Ix;  put 
inl)('r>  of 
ixrcii  that 
)lic  duty. 
Ii(!  rca>^on 


that  the  carrier  is  there1)y  invited  to  omit  his  duty  in  other 
<'ases,  and  thus  injure  the  whole  community.  Can  it  he  pos- 
sihlethat  these  consideratioi\s  on  which  the  rule  against  total 
<'Xcm])tion  is  hased,  lost?  their  force  when  the  carrier  is  in- 
vited to  violate  his  puhlic  duty  hy  an  ajrrecment  that  he  mav 
violate  it  at  half  price?  The  principle  of  the  rule  is  that 
wny  agreement  which  operates  to  interfere  with  the  puhlie 
right  touching  the  care  and  good  faith  of  common  carriers, 
ill  an  agreement  against  pul)lic  policy  and  welfare,  and  is, 
therefore,  void  ;  and  as  \x\^  ;mreement  that  his  uejrlijrcnc'e 
shall  h  •  cheap  must  operate  in  this  Avay,  it  necessarily  falls 
within  that  principle. 

We  arc  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  court  instructed 
the  jury  correctly,  in  allowing  them  to  find  for  the  full 
value  of  i)laiiitiff's  projierty,  notwithstanding  the  condi- 
tions of  the  hill  of  lading,  if  they  shou'd  find  that  the 
loss  was  occasioned  hy  the  gross  negligence  of  the  defend- 

!Ult. 

As  to  the  duty  of  a  shipper  to  advise  the  carrier  that  the 
actual  was  greater  than  the  apparent  value  of  tiie  article 
sliipi)ed,  we  hold  that  his  omission  to  give  such  information 
does  not  affect  his  rights,  unless  it  justifies  the  carrier  in 
adopting  the  course  of  conduct  hy  which  the  loss  occurred. 
A  carrier  who  is  allowed  to  suppose  that  an  article  may  he 
handled  in  a  i)!:rticular  mannei"  is  not  responslhle  for  so  hand- 
ling it,  and  the  shipper  has  to  suhujit  to  the  natural  effect 
of  his  own  omissions  to  give  projjer  information.  But  that 
case  is  not  l)efore  us.  It  can  hardly  he  imagined,  that  the 
omission  of  the  i)laintiffs  to  disclose  the  exceptional  value 
of  their  shipment  tempted  the  defendant  to  wreck  and  hurn 
its  train. 


NoTK.— Upon    tilt'  first  proposition  «)f  the  Ki/llalius  in  tlic   forego! iii;' 
iMSc,  sec  ante.  «}§  1,  10!»,  2;t:{. 

I'poii  tlie  spronil  ])roposition  of  tlie  si/lhilinK.  see  ante  §S  "iS.  132. 
Upon  tlie  third  proposition  of  tlie  sylldbuK,  see  ante,  ^  88. 
Upon  tlie  fourth  proposition  of  the  syUahns,  see  ante,  ij  VX). 
Upon  thoHfth  proposition  of  the  siillahua.  see  ante.  <J  i:?4. 


i 

ppp^ 

rr 

T" 

486 


TIIK  roNTUACTS  OF  CATUUKKH. 


[cn. 


Mil, 


2()().— KXI'KESSCOMrANY— I.IAIUr-ITYroK  I.OSSKS  fAlSKU 
HV  Ni;<;M<iK\('K()K  UAILWOAD  — CONDITION  IN  UKCEiri 
IJMrnN<i  MAHII.ITY— EVIDKNCE  OK  ASSENT. 


u 


IJank  or  Kknti  (KY  v.  Adams  Expkkss  Company. 

t')iit((l  Stiiti's  i'iiruit  Court.  Dixtrict  <>f  Kriitvrk'/.Jnlii,  1S74. 
Hcforc  Hon.  Hi.AM*  Uam.akp,  Disti'ict  .liiii^e. 

1.  Where  a  hank,  thioii^jh  its  teller,  jjives  paekiifjes  of  money  to  iin  ex- 

press eoniiiany  to  ti'ansport  to  another  eiiv.  and  in  sodoinjj  the  tel- 
ler tills  lint  th(>  hlanks  In  the  express  company's  ordinary  printed 
reeeipt.  and  pives  it  to  the  a«;ent  of  the  company  to  sijrn.  and  th«^ 
receipt  contains  a  printed  stipulation  exempting;  the  express  i-oni- 
pany  from  liahility  foi"  loss  or  damage  occasiored  hy  tire.  It  is  no 
objection  to  the  validity  of  this  stipulation  that  'he  attention  of  the 
oHieers  of  the  hank  was  not  called  toil:  aiui  it:  is  not  ernu' to  instruct 
the  jury  in  such  a  case  that  the  hank  would  he  hound  hy  it,  whether 
it  was  known  to  them  <u'  not. 

2.  An  express  company  which  receives  packa<?es  of  money  to  cany  from 

one  point  to  another,  on  a  <'ontraet  exemi)tin;j  it  from  liahility  in 
case  of  loss  or  dama;^e  by  fire,  is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  such  |)ack- 
n^es  in  consequence  of  a  tire  resulting  from  a  railroad  accident, 
which  happens  without  fault  of  the  express  loinpany  or  its  afjents 
while  such  paekajyes  are  beinj;  transported  to  their  destination  in 
the  custody  of  the  express  company's  messeiifjer,  \\]um  a  railroad 
train,  operated  and  controlled  by  the  af^entsand  servants  of  theiail- 
road  company,  anil  ov<'r  which  neither  the  express  company  nor  its 
agents  have  any  control.  The  railroad  comiiany.  in  such  ci.s  >,  does 
not  stand  in  the  relation  of  njjent  oi-  servant  to  the  express  company. 

The  plaintiff  sued  the  dofciidiuit  for  diiniit<ros  for  the  loss 
of  ii  piickiigo  of  money  intrusted  to  the  defendtint  hy  the 
Louisiiina  liiink  tit  New  Orleans,  Louisiana,  for  delivery  to 
the  plaintiff  at  Louisville,  Kentucky,  Imt  which  wiis  lost  fii 
route  m  eonsefjuence  of  a  rtiilroad  ticcidcnt,  Under  the  in- 
structions of  the  court,  the  jin'v  returned  a  verdict  for  the 
defendant,  and  the  i)laintiff  moved  for  a  new  tritU. 

John  M.  Harlan  and  Barr,  Goodloe  <!•  Jfumphrei/,  for 
l)laintiff;  I  tii  F.  C  a  hi  well  and  G.  C  Wharton,  for  defend- 
ant. 


cu.  xm. 


(II.  Mil 


•] 


UNUKl'OKTKI)  CASKS, 


4;{< 


SCAISKI) 
KKrKll'T 


'AW. 


Ballahi),.].  : 

()i\  .*'  foriiicr  (lav  tliciv  wort'  in  Ihi 


s  case  ti  verdict  and  jndii- 


1S'/4. 


■  to  an  <'x- 
i\ii  lln'  Icl- 
iiiry  |)iint('<l 
iXM.  and  tli(t 
s;|)rt'ss  coin- 
ill',  it  is  no 
iition  of  tlii> 
r  to  insliiu't 
il.  wiiotluT 

>  cairy  from 
liability  in 
f  snch  i)ack- 
1(1  JUTldcnt. 
•r  its  afTcnts 
slination  in 
n  a  railroad 
<  of  thcrail- 
)any  nor  its 
1  I'j.s",  docs 
<s  company. 

1-  the  loss 
It  hy  the 
eliv(>rv  lo 

IS     lost  f'll 

n-  the  in- 
t  for  the 

h'ci/,  for 
I"  def(Mid- 


inent  iov  the  defendiint.     At  the  trial  the  counsel 


i( 


r  th 


pliiintiff  took  sevend  exceptions  to  the  rnlin<fs  oi  the  court 
iind  ch:ir«re  to  the  jury,  iiiul  they  hiive  now  moved  for  a  new 
triid,  iissij;nin«r  for  cause  thiil  the  court  erred  in  refusin"  to 
uive  the  instructions  asked  hy  them  tind  in  givinjr  the  instruc- 
tions which  were  jj!;iven. 

The  learned  counsel  have  submitted  no  argument  on  their 
motion.  They  sttind  on  theiirgument  niiuleand  the  authori- 
ties cited  iit  the  triid.  As  hoth  thtit  argument  inid  those 
iiuthorities  received  at  the  tiin(!  the  fullest  consideration,  I 
think  I  would  he  justitied  in  overruling  the  motion  without 
iidding  to  whiit  wtis  then  said,  l)ut  tis  the  oijinion  then  ex- 
pressed by  me  on  the  niitin  jjoint  in  the  ctisc  is  apparently 
opposed  to  sevend  respectid)ie  authorities,  and  is  supposed 
lo  present  ii  new  :md  important  (juestion,  I  feel  that  I  ought 
not  to  iillow  this  opi)ortunity  to  jjiiss  without  attempting  ji 
vindication  of  tin  opinion,  the  correctness  of  which  litis  been 
contirmed  by  snbsecpu'nt  reHection. 

The  facts  in  the  ciis(  are  substtnititdly  as  follows:  The 
Southern  Express  Comptuiy  tmd  the  Adtnns  Express  Coni- 
piiny  tire  engiiged  each  in  the  busitu'ss  of  carrying  money 
tmd  other  articles  from  one  j)iirt  of  the  country  to  tniother, 
for  hire,  td  the  reipiest  of  any  one  who  offers  such  tirtides 
to  them  for  ctirritige.  They  do  not  use  in  their  business  any 
vehicles  of  their  own  except  such  tis  are  re(juired  to  trans- 
port the  articles  intrusted  to  them,  to  tmd  from  rtdlroad 
depots,  and  to  tmd  from  steiunl)oat  Itindings.  They  use  rail- 
roads, stetimbotits  tind  the  other  public  conveytiuces  of  the 
country.  These  conveyances  tire  not  subject  to  their  con- 
trol, but  tire  governed  entirely  by  the  comptmies  and  i)ersons 
to  whom  they  belong.  The  packages  intrusted  to  them  are 
tit  all  times,  while  on  these  public  c()nv(!yanees,  in  the  care 
of  one  of  their  own  messengers  or  tigents.  These  com- 
panies tire  engtiged  in  carrying  by  the  railroads  through 
ijouisitma    tind    Mississippi    to    Humboldt,   Tennessee,   and 


4a« 


TIIK  (ONTHACrs  OK  CAIJIMKItS. 


[ 


cir.  xu;, 


tli('iu'(^  over  \\n'  Louisville  ami  Ntislivillc  Haili-oiul  to  Loiiis- 
villc.  Ivy.,  under  a  eonlraet  l)_v  wliieli  they  divide  tlu'  coni- 
pensatiou  in  proportion  to  the  dislaiiee  the  article  is  trans- 
ported by  the  r('s[)eetive  companies.  Hetween  lluniholdt, 
Teiin.jand  Louisville,  Ky.,  hotli  eoini)auies  employ  the  same 
inessonfjor,  hut  this  ines.senjLyer,  south  of  the  northern  houml- 
ary  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  is  subject  entirely  to  the 
orders  of  the  Southern  Express  Coinpany,  and  north  of  that 
hoiuulurv  is  sultjeet  entirely  to  the  orders  of  the  Adams  Ex- 
press Company. 

These  express  companies  are  in  the  lialtit  of  charirin<i'  on(* 
price  u'hen  thev  undertake  to  insure  the  safe  delivei-v  of  the 
articles  intrusted  to  them  —  that  is,  when  they  do  not  modify 
their  ordinary  responsibility  as  common  carriers,  and  of 
char<;in<r  another  and  lower  price  when  their  responsibility 
is  limited.  The  Louisiana  National  Hank  was  aware  of  thcs(^ 
rej^ulations,  and  had  in  its  possession  printed  blank  receipts 
or  bills  of  Indinjj:,  showinj;  in  the  body  the  conditions  and 
exceptions  upon  which  the  companies  would  undertake  t(> 
<'arry  at  the  lower  rati!,  and  in  the  margin  the  i)rinted  blank 
for  the  rate  at  which  thev  would  insure.  Ilavinii'  received  a 
letter  from  the  plaintiff  directiuir  the  forwardin<;  by  express 
of  the  sum  of  $\l\,iy2HAr),  the  j)ank,  by  its  teller,  tilled  the 
blanks  in  that  i)art  of  the  bill  of  ladiuir  which  contained  the 
conditions  and  exceptions,  and  presented  it  to  the  Souther;. 
Express  Company  for  its  siirnature  and  delivered  the  pack- 
a«ife  of  money  adcJressed  to  tlu;  [jlaintiff  without  statiiijr  who 
WHS  the  owner.  The  bill  of  iadinj;  was  siirned  and  re-de- 
livered to  the  teller  of  the  Louisana  National  Hank,  and  for- 
warded by  him  to  the  plaintiff  at  Louisville.  It  does  not 
a])pear  that  the  receipt  avus  read  at  the  time  of  its  delivery, 
or  that  the  attention  of  the  otHcers  of  the  Louisiana  National 
Hank  was  called  specially  to  the  exceptions  contained  in  it, 
but,  as  before  stated,  the  bank  was  aware  of  these  excep- 
tions and  of  the  stipulations  for  the  lesser  rate  of  coini)en- 
sation. 

This  package  was  carried  by 'the  Southern  Express  Com- 


(ir.  xu;. 

to  Louis- 
llic  coin- 
is  traiis- 

Ullll)o|(lt, 

tlic  saiiu' 
■11  liouiid- 
to  the 
li  of  that 
aiiis  Kx- 

\'ix'u\<f  one 
'IT  of  the 
>l  inodifv 
,  and  of 
oiisil)ility 

of  these 
;  rcct-ipts 
ions  and 

rtake  to 
led  hhiiik 
c'ceivod  a 
V  express 
tilled  tin- 
allied  the 
Soul  her,' , 
he  pack- 
tiiijr  who 
id  re-de- 
aiid  for- 
does not 
delivery. 
National 
od  in  it, 
a  oxcep- 
coiiipen- 

ss  Com- 


(11.   XIII.] 


INKKI'OIiTKI)  CAHKS. 


431) 


pany  fnnii  New  Orleans  t(t  Iluniltoldt,  'reiin.,  and  Ihero 
delivered  to  the  joint  iiiessen-icr  of  the  Southern  and  Adams 
Kxprcss  coinpanies.  While  it  was  in  the  custody  of  this 
inessen<i('r  lietween  lliinilioldt  and  the  iioitherii  line  of  the 
Slate  of  'reniiess<'e,  the  car  in  which  tlu;  packa<r((  was  con- 
tained was  pcrcipitatcd  tiirouirh  a  Irusth'-work  on  the  line  of 
the  Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad,  at  or  near  Hudd'« 
creek,  and  the  car  and  packa^rc  w«'re  destroyed  hy  lire.  This 
was  caused  l»y  the  fallen  locomotive,  without  any  fault  or 
neglect  on  the  part  of  the  m(s>eiiji:-cr  who  had  charge  of  the 
package. 

So  much  of  the  rccci[)l  as  is  material  to  the  present  c.m- 
troversv  is  as  follows  : 

"  SoiTIIKliN   Kxi'liKSS  ("o.MI'ANY. 

'•  /'j\rp)'i'.s,s  forirardcvH. 

•'  No.  1'.  — $i;'.,:t2.s.l.").  ,]vhY,  2<5,  18GU. 

"Keceived  from  the  Louisiana  National  IJaiik  one  pack- 
ag»  ,  sealed  and  said  to  contain  $l;),."»L^S.l,'»,  addressed  '  Jiank 
of  Kentucky,  Louisville,  Kentucky.' 

"  I'poii  the  special  acceptance  and  agreement  that  this 
company  is  to  forward  the  same  to  its  agent  nearest  or  most 
convenient  to  destination  only,  and  there  (h'liver  the  same 
to  other  parlies  to  complete  the  transaction,  such  delivery 
to  terminate  all  liability  of  this  coiii[)aiiy  for  such  damage  ; 
ami  also  that  this  coni[)any  are  not  to  he  liable  in  any  man- 
ner (U'  to  any  extent  for  any  loss  or  damage  *  •  »  j)f 
such  package  or  of  its  contents  *  *  *  oeeasioned  *  *  * 
hy  tire  or  steam.  The  shipper  and  owner  hereby  several!}' 
agree  tliat  all  the  sti[)ulatioiis  and  conditions  in  this  rec(Mpt 
contained  shall  exti-nd  to  and  inure  to  the  benefit  of  eaeh  and 
every  company  or  [)erson  to  whom  the  Southern  Express 
("ompaiiy  may  intrust  or  deliver  the  above  described  prop- 
erty for  transportation,  and  shall  define  and  limit  the  lia- 
l>ility  therefor  of  such  other  com[)any  or  person." 

Tpon  tli(>se  faets  the  court  charged  the  jury  : 

First — That  the  Southern  Hxpress  Company  and  the  Ad- 
ams Express  r()mi)any  are  common  carriers. 


(to 


TIIK  CoNTIlAfTS  OF  CAHItlKltS. 


[ 


(11.  \m. 


Si'cond — 'I'liiil  llic  Adams  Kxprcss  Coiiipnny  i«  lial)I('  for 
tlic  loss  of  pacUiijjfcs  (IcIivtTctl  to  tlii>  joint  iiu'sscii^rcr  of  tlic 
two  coinpaiiics  at  Iluiiil)ol(lt ,  'rciiii.,  altliou<;li  tlio  loss  occur 
south  <»f  the  soiillicni  hoimdary  of  tlic  Stale  of  'I'ciiiu'ssi'c. 

'I'hinl — 'I'liat  if  Ilic  jury  hclicvc  tlic  facts  alxivr  (h-taih-d 
in  rohilion  to  tiu^  execution  of  the  receipt,  then  it  thii> 
sijiiiod  and  (h-livercd  constitutes  the  contract ,  and  all  the  ex- 
ceptions in  it  arc  a  part  of  the  contract,  no  matter  whether 
each  or  all  of  them  \v<'re  known  to  thi'  Louisiana  National 
Haidv  or  not  ;  ami  the  plaintiff  is  hound  l)y  this  contract, 
whether  il  expressly  authorized  the  Louisiana  National  IJank 
to  make  it  or  no*. 

Fourth — "  If  the  hill  of  ladinir  contained  no  exception  ii 
is  clear  that  the  defend:uit  would  not  he  excused  i)ecaU'e 
the  .iceideut  occurred  without  its  fault.  It  wouhl  he  the  in- 
surer, and,  th(;ref.)rc,  acc()untal)le.  Hut  the  hill  of  lading;' 
ainon^i'  other  exceptions  contained  this  :  '  That  tho  company 
arc  not  to  he  liahlo  in  any  manner  or  to  any  extent  for  any 
loHs  or  damafife  *  *  of  such  i)acka<i('  or  its  content- 
*  *  occasioned  *  *  hy  lire.'  Now,  if  you  hclievc 
that  the  i)acka;;"e  was  destroyed  hy  lire  as  ahove  inilicaled. 
without  any  fault  or  neulcct  on  hehalf  of  the  uies-enircr 
of  tl;o  defendant,  the  defendant  has  hrouLrht  itself  within  the 
terms  of  the  exception,  and  it  is  not  liahlc.  It  is  not  uiat(  - 
rial  to  in(iuii"e  whetlu'r  the  accident  ri-sulted  from  the  want 
of  care  or  fi'om  the  neixliirence  of  the  Louisville  and  Na-li- 
vill<'  JJailroad  and  its  au'ents  or  not,  since  the  unconlrovcitcd 
t(!stiniony  shows  that  the  car  and  train  in  which  the  me.--en- 
ircr  of  the  Adams  Lxpress  Company  was  transpculiii!.''  the 
jtaekajre  helouij^ed  to  the  Louisville  :ind  Nashville  Hailroad 
Company,  and  were  exclusively  suhject  to  its  control  and 
orders,  A  common  ca'-rier  who  has  not  limited  his  i-espon- 
sihility  is  uudonhtedly  res,M)nsil)le  for  losses,  whether  (»ccui- 
iiifi'  on  vehicles  controlled  hy  him  exclusively  or  heloniriiiir  to 
and  controlled  hy  others,  hecausc  he  is  an  insurer  for  the  safe 
delivery  of  the  article  which  he  has  aureed  to  carry;  hut 
v.hen  he  has  limited  his  liahility  so  as  lo  make  inmscif  rc- 


pi) 


m 


[<ll.   Xllt. 


( ir.  Mil.] 


t  NItKI'OltTKI)  CASKS. 


ill 


liiiMc  Cur 
rtTof  ili(. 
OSS  occur 
cimcsscc. 
(Ictiiilcd 

I  it    thus 

II  tllCCX- 

wlicti).  r 

N'MfioilMl 

c<)iitP:i(|, 
iiiil  li:ink 

•  •fptioii  ii 

I     I>fC!lll«C 

!>•■  the  iii- 
of   IjidiiiM- 
coMipMiiy 
t    for  any 
contents 
»n  hcjicvc 
iii(lic:ilc(|, 
nt'sscniTcr 
^vilhin  tlic 
not  in;it(- 
Ihc  w:i!)l 
nd   N;i-!i- 
tro\»4'ti'(| 
'  nic..>cn- 
rlinir  tlic 
H.-iili'o.KJ 
itrol   and 
■i  rcspoii- 
('V  occui- 
'njrin<r  to 
the  .safe 
rrv  ;  l»nt 
iself  ic- 


sponsiMc  for  ordinary  care  only,  and  the  shipper  to  recover 
aiiainst  jiiiii  is  ohjijifed  to  aver  and  prove  ncirlijicnrc,  it  niiisl 
lie  iiis  nt'^lijrcnc('  or  the  ni',u:Iii:ence  of  his  ajrcnts,  and  not 
the  nc;rlijrcncc  of  persons  over  whom  he  has  no  contnd.  If 
ill  his  eniployinenl  he  uses  tiie  veiiicles  of  (»tiieis  (»ver  which 
he  lias  no  conti'ol,  and  uses  rcasonalde  care — tliat  is,  such 
cure  as  ordinai'ily  pruih'ut  persons  enpuicd  in  like  hiisiness 
u-i'  in  selecting;  the  vehicles,  and  if  the  loss  arises  fioin  a 
cause  ajjainst  which  he  has  stipulated  with  the  shipper — he 
shall  not  l)e  liahh'  for  the  same  unless  it  arises  from  his 
want  of  care  or  the  want  of  care  of  his  employees.  \>'itli- 
out,  therefore,  decidin;j;  whether  or  not  the  evidence  ad- 
duced in  the  case  tends  to  establish  any  want  of  reasoiiahic 
or  (U-dinai-y  care  on  the  part  of  the  liouisville  and  Nashville 
Ivaili'oad  Company.  I  instruct  you  that  such  evidence  is  ir- 
reh^vaiit  ami  incompetent,  and  that  you  should  disreifard  it 
— that  is,  irive  no  more  effect  to  it  than  if  it  had  not  heen 
adduced." 

The  liist  and  second  instruetions  were  not  excepted  to, 
luit  the  tliiril  and  f6ui1h  were. 

At  the  ti'ial  the  plaiiil  iff  insisted  that  it  was  not  hound 
liy  the  terms  of  the  receipt,  hecause  it  was  not  shown 
that  the  attention  of  the  Louisiana  National  Hank  was  called 
to  th<>m  at  the  time  or  that  it  expr<'ssly  assentetl  to  them, 
l)iit  I  am  of  opinion  that  then;  was  no  eiror  in  this  [)ortion 
of  the  cliarnc  The  Louisiana  National  Uank  was  aware 
that  the  receipt  contained  some  excei)tions  and  conditions. 
It  accepted  the  I'cceiiii  without  i'cmonstranc(>  or  objection, 
and  both  authority  ami  reason  demonstrate  that  the  receipt 
must  under  these  circumstances  ))e  rejjfai'ded  as  constitutinu' 
the  contract  of  the  parties.'" 

It  is  now  everywhere  a<hnitted  that  a  common  carrier  may 
limit  his  resijonsibility  by  exi)ress  contract,  and  if  he  may 

■■''Doit  v.  Xcw  Jersey  SKmiii  N;iv.  (.'.)..  4  Sandf,  ll^l!  (lS,-,(();  WclN  v. 
Stcjim  N!iv.  Co..  s  X.  Y.  ;<7'>  (IS:):5);  Ciruce  v.  Adams.  100  Mass.  50:. 
(1S08);  llolford  v.  Adanis.-J  Diht.  (71  (185:i);  Y()rk<'(i.  v.  Cciitral  Kail- 
ri<ad. ;{  Willi.  107  (isi;.-)). 


.~.Mmm^ 


J 


i!^- 


442 


THP:  CONTKACT8  OF  CAUHIEUS.  [CH.  Xlll. 


aw  , 


niiike  an  express  eonlract  with  the  shipper  of  goods,  I  can 
not  see  why  the  contract  may  not  i)e  shown  by  the  same  ev- 
idence which  Avould  establish  a  contract  between  other  par- 
ties. I  can  not  see  why  a  writing  delivered  by  a  carrier  to 
an  owner  of  goods,  intend(Kl  by  the  former  to  express  the 
terms  and  conditions  of  liis  contract  to  carry,  and  received 
by  the  latter  as  such,  should  not  constitute  the  contract  be- 
tween them. 

A  common  carrier  it  is  true  is  bound  to  carry  all  articles 
within  the  line  of  his  l)nsiness  ui)on  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions in»posed  by  law,  if  the  shipper  shall  so  demand.  He 
has,  however,  a  right  to  charge  in  proi)ortion  to  the  risk  as- 
sumed by  him.  It  is  upon  this  grounil  the  authorities  hold 
that  unless  his  resp()nsii)ilitv  is  modilied  l)y  express  contract 
his  undertaking  to  carry  is  upon  the  terms  and  conditions 
which  are  imi)osed  by  law.  Hut  when  \\v  has  undertaken 
to  earr}'  at  a  less  rate  than  he  woukl  have  a  right  to  charge, 
and  would  charge  if  he  undertook  to  carry  only  ujjou  all  the 
conditions  imi)osed  by  law,  and  has  by  Ins  receipt  delivered 
to  the  shipper  stipulated  for  a  reasonable  limitation  of  his 
responsil)ility,  and  the  shiju'cr  has  accepted  the  receipt  with- 
out objection,  the  latter  is  as  nmch  bound  by  the  contract 
thus  made  as  any  other  party  would  be. 

The  correctness  of  the  proi)osition  contained  in  the  re- 
nuiining  portion  of  the  charge;  to  which  excei)tion  was  taken 
may,  I  think,  be  demonstrated  in  two  ways : 

First,  By  the  contract  between  the  \nu\k  and  the  express 
company  it  agreed  that  the  company  should  not  be  res|)on- 
sible  for  any  loss  or  damage  of  the  package  which  should 
be  occasioned  by  fire.  The  loss  was  occasioned  by  tire  ; 
hence  the  carrier  by  the  terms  of  the  contract  is  not  respon- 
sible. It  is  not  pri'tendcd  that  the  contract  was  violated  by 
using  the  cars  of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  Kailroad  Com- 
l)any  to  transport  the  messenger  and  the  jjackage  or  was 
violated  in  any  other  respect  ;  it  follows,  therefore,  that  if 
the  company  it<  liable  at  all  it  is  not  by  virtue  of  the  eon- 
tract  but  in  spite  of  it. 


[CII.  XIII. 

)ods,  I  can 
e  .same  ov- 
othor  par- 
i  carrier  t«> 
xpress  the 
d  received 
:)iitract  be- 
lli articles 
iKi  coiidi- 
aiui.     He 
K^  risk  as- 
)ri(ies  hold 
ss  contract 
(•onditions 
indertaken 
to  cliarire, 
pon  all  the 
t  delivered 
ion  of   hi.s 
eeipt  with- 
le  contract 

in  the  iv- 
was  taken 

he  express 
l>e  respon- 
ioh  should 
1  hy  tire  ; 
ot  respon- 
iolated  hy 
■oad  Coin- 
rt'  or  was 
•e,  that  if 
'  the  con- 


rii.  xiii.] 


l^VKKPOItTEI)  CASES. 


443 


The  contract,  however,  does  not  attempt  to  exempt,  nor 
could  it  have  exempted,  the  exjjress  comi)anv  from  loss  oc- 
casioned 1)V  the  neglect  of  itself  or  its  serv.uiis.  but  when 
it  is  sought  to  char_i)-e  the  company  with  nejjlect  it  must  be 
such  ne<rlect  as  it  is  res|)(»iisibl('  fo"  upoii  the  iieneral  princi- 
ples of  law. 

Now,  upon  these  princi[)les  no  one  is  responsible  for  dam- 
air*'  o('easioned  bv  neulect,  unless  it  be  the  ncsrlect  of  him- 
self  or  his  servants  or  agents.  But  the  facts  stated  show 
that  neither  the  company  nor  its  servant  was  guilty  of  any 
neglect.  It  follows  that  the  defendant  can  not  ))e  charged 
on  this  account.  Though  the  defendant  used  the  Louisiana 
and  Nashville  Railroad  to  transport  its  messenger  and  the 
package,  the  railroad  company  was  not,  in  any  legal  sense, 
the  servant  of  the  defendant.  The  defendant  had  no  con- 
trol over  the  railroad  company  or  over  its  servants.  The 
railroad  company  was  no  more  the  servant  of  the  defend- 
ant than  it  is  of  any  passenger  whom  it  transports.  It  was 
no  more  the  servant  of  the;  defendant  than  is  the  hack  or 
cal)  the  servant  of  him  who  hires  it  to  transport  him  from 
one  part  of  the  city  to  anotlu'r. 

Second.  All  the  authorities  agree  that  when  a  common 
carrier  has  by  si)ecial  contract  limited  his  responsibility 
"  he  becomes  with  reference  to  that  particular  transaction 
an  ordinary  bailee  —  a  [jrivate  carrier  for  hire,"  or  "re- 
duces his  res|)onsibilities  to  those  of  an  ordinary  bailee  for 
hire."  ■'"*  I  jjrefcv  the  latter  form  of  stating  the  proposi- 
tion, because  it  's  less  misleading.  1  do  not  think  that  a 
common  carrier  by  entering  into  a  contract  limiting  his  re- 
sponsibility changes  his  character.  He  still  remains  a  com- 
mon carrier  with  his  responsibility  limited  in  respect  to  the 
imittxu-  emb'':.ced  iii  his  contract  to  that  of  an  ordinary 
bailee  for  hire.  'IMie  authorities  are  e(iually  clear  that  an 
ordinarv  bailee  for  hire  is  bomul  to  onlv  ordinarv  diliuence, 

»<  York  Co.  V,  ('ciiiriil  llailroad.  W  Wall.  107  (ISC.j) :  Xcw.lfisfy  Stfam 
Navijjfatiou  ('<».  V.  Mt-nliants  Bank.  ('.  Ho\v.;il4  (1S4S):  Hailroail  t'o.  v. 
Lock  wood.  17  Wall.  :>.")7  {\XT.\). 


,   K 


m 


444 


TIIK  CONTKACTS  OF  CAKIUKHS. 


[en.  xin. 


'Mi 


and  responsihlc  only  for  losses  iiiul  injuries  oceasioned  by 
negligence  or  want  of  ordinary  care.  The  defendant  did 
by  special  contract  limit  its  responsibility,  and  neither  it  nor 
its  servant,  the  messenger,  is  chargeable  with  any  neglect 
or  Avant  of  care.  The  loss  of  the  package  was  occasioned 
by  fire.  The  contract  i)rovides  that  the  defendant  should 
n<)»,  be  liable  for  a  loss  so  occasioned,  and  as  neither  the  de- 
fendant nor  defendant's  servant  was  wanting  in  care  it  fol- 
lows that  it  is  not  resi)onsiblc  for  the  loss. 

Suppose  the  package  had  been  lawfully  intrusted  by  the 
Louisiana  National  IJank  to  a  }»rivate  person  to  be  carried 
for  hire  and  delivered  to  the  plaintiff,  and  it  was  contem- 
plated by  the  ])arties  that  such  jx'rson  would  trans})ort  the 
package  and  himself  by  the  railroads  which  it  was  contem- 
plated the  defendant  would  use,  and  the  package  had  l)een 
lost  under  the  sanu'  circumstances  that  the  package  deliv- 
ered to  the  deft'udant  was  lost.  Mould  it  for  a  moment  be 
contended  that  such  private  person  would  be  rcsponsil)le? 

Suppose  again  that  a  person  should  deliver  to  his  friend, 
who  contemi)lated  coming  from  New  Orleans  to  Louisville 
by  the  ordinary  modes  of  travel,  a  watch,  to  be  carried  and 
delivered  at  the  latter  city,  ai\d  that  while  such  ])rivate  car- 
rier without  i-(>ward  was  proceeding  on  his  way  in  one  of 
the  cars  of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad  Company, 
the  car  should  by  gross  carelessness  of  those  haviim-  charg*- 
of  it  be  thi'own  from  the  track,  and  the  wiitch  in  charge  of 
the  cari'ier,  without  any  neglect  on  his  part,  destroyed.  Is 
il  conceivable  that  such  carrier  would  be  resi»onsible  for  the 
loss?  To  hold  that  he  would  be  responsil)le  would  not  only 
violate  the  i)lainest  principles  of  law  but  would  shock  the 
connnon  sense  of  mankind,  and  yet  not  oidy  the  private 
carrier  f(M-  hire  i»ut  the  private  carrier  without  reward  is 
respoMsii)le  for  the  loss  of  a  package  intrusted  to  him  under 
the  circumstances  supposed  if  the  defendant  is  responsible 
for  the  loss  oF  the  package  ejainu'd  in  this  case. 

The  private  carrier  for  hire  is  responsible  for  losses  and 
injuries  occasioned  by  want  of  ordinary  care  on  his  part  or 


t  M.  XIII. 

iioncd  by 
itlaiit  did 
icr  it  nor 
neglect 
eeasioned 
it  .should 
M-  the  d«'- 
ire  it  fol- 

d  l)y  the 

earried 

eonteni- 

sport  the 
eontem- 

had  heen 

ii'e  deli\- 
onient    he 

nsihh'? 

is  friend, 

iOtiisviMe 
irried  and 
ivate  ear- 
n  one  of 
'oni])any, 
111"  <'harii(' 
•haru'e  of 
\ved.  Is 
e  f<»r  the 

not  only 
hoek  the 
'  private 
(■ward  is 
ini  under 
'ponsihle 

sses  and 
part  or 


CM.  XIII.] 


IMtKIM )I{TKI)  TASKS. 


44') 


on  the  part  of  his  servants  ;  and  a  private  carrier  witliout 
any  pay  is  responsible,  if  not  for  want  of  ordinary  care, 
certaiidy  for  j>ross  lu^nlect.  It  can  not  he  maintained  with 
the  least  show  of  reason  that  the  Lonisville  and  Nashville 
Railroad  was  any  more  the  servant  of  the  defendant 
in  transporting  the  package  sued  for  in  this  case  than  it  is 
the  servant  of  the  carrier  for  hire  and  the  carrier  without 
iiire  in  the  cases  su[)posed,  and  if  these  last  are  not  respon- 
sil)l(!  for  the:  neglect  of  the  servants  o^  the  railroad  e(uii- 
pany  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  the  (h'fendaut  is  re- 
sponsible for  such  neglect. 

The  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  attem[)t  to  escai)e  this  con- 
clusion by  insisting  that  though  the  defendant  limited  its 
responsi!)iIity  it  still  remains  a  eommon  ea'rier,  and  that 
such  carrier  is  responsible  not  oidy  for  any  want  of  negli- 
irenee  of  himself  and  his  servants,  but  for  the  neulitrence 
of  aiiv  agency  which  he  may  employ  in  his  business. 

This  proposition  is  misleading.  It  is  not  strietly  correct 
to  say  that  a  common  earrier  is  res[)onsible  for  the  negli- 
gence of  any  agency  in  his  business,  or  even  for  his  own 
negligenee  or  that  of  his  servants,  in  the  sense  in  which  his 
responsibility  is  distinguished  from  the  responsibility  of  an- 
other [)erson.  A  common  carrier  is  bound  to  deliver  goods 
intrusted  to  him  uidess  prevented  by  the  owner,  the  aet  of 
(lod  or  the  i)ublic  enemy,  lie  is  as  the  law  terms  him  an 
insurer  for  the  safe  carriage  and  delivery  of  goods,  subject 
oidy  to  the  exeeptions  above  mentioned.  If  he  does  not 
deliver  goods  intrusted  to  him  he  is  responsible,  not  because 
the  goods  were  lost  by  his  neglect  or  by  the  neglect  of  a 
servant,  or  bv  the  neglect  of  some  agency  which  he  em- 
pl(»yed,  but  because  he  insured  their  delivery.  His  respon- 
sibility is  wholly  indei)endent  of  the  neglect  of  any  one. 
If  g(»(>ds  delivered  to  him  to  be  carried  are  lost  while  in  his 
or  his  servants  custody,  or  while  in  the  custody  of  some 
other  i)erson  who  is  not  hi  ^  servant,  he  is  ecpially  responsi- 
ble, not  because  he  is  liai)le  upon  any  i)riiuiple  of  law  for 
the  negligence  of  any  person  who  is  not  his  servant,  but  l)e- 


'•'  -'.I  ^.i-'-firmm^' 


44(1 


THE  CONTKACT.S  OF  CAKHIKHS.  [CH.   XIU. 


n. 


cause  he  is  Ijound  by  liiw  to  eurry  and  deliver  safe  all  goods 
delivered  to  him  unless  prevented  as  before  stated  hy  the 
owner,  the  aet  of  (lod  or  the  publie  enemy.  If  he  has  lim- 
ited his  responsibility  by  sptn-ial  eontraet,  and  the  loss  has 
been  oeeasioned  by  the  cause  excepted  in  (he  contract,  then 
the  owner  in  order  to  c'-nrge  him  must  show  that  thouj^h 
the  loss  arose  directly  from  the  cause  excepted  that  cause 
itself  was  occasioned  i)v  the  neglect  of  the  carrier.  But 
when  a  public  or  i)rivate  carrier  is  sought  to  l)e  charged 
with  loss  occasioned  by  his  neglect,  when  n»'glect  is  the 
foundation  of  the  plaintiff's  claim,  I  am  not  aware  that  he 
is  liable  for  any  negligence  excei)i  upon  tlie  same  [)rinciples 
and  under  the  same  circumstances  that  any  other  person  is 
liable.  I  am  not  aware  that  he  more  than  any  one  else  can 
be  made  responsible  for  the  negligence  of  jx'i'sons  who  are 
not  his  servants. 

rndoubtedly  the  defendant  did,  notwithstanding  its  con- 
tract, continue;  to  be  a  common  carrier,  l)ut  its  rcs|)()nsibil!ty 
was  limited  to  that  of  an  ordinary  bailee  for  hire.  Now, 
an  ordinary  bailee  for  hire  is  i-esponsible  for  only  ordinary 
care,  and  liable  for  the  neglect  of  himself  or  his  own  ser- 
vants, and  not  for  the  neglect  of  persons  over  whom  he  h;is 
no  control.  Consequently  he  is  not  rcsponsil)l(;  for  a  loss 
occurring  under  the  '•ircums(anc«'s  presented  in  this  case. 
If  it  be  admitted  that  the  common  carrier  has  by  his  con- 
tract limited  his  responsiljility  to  that  of  an  ordinary  bailee 
for  hire,  then  it  can  not  be  consistently  insisted  upon  that 
he  shall  be  held  lial)le  as  a  common  carrier  who  has  unule 
no  exi)ress  contract.  To  admit  the  contract  and  to  deny 
any  effect  to  it  is  too  much  for  one  proposition.  The  [uop- 
osition  of  counsel,  reduced  to  its  essence,  is  simply  this: 
That  though  the  defendant  has  by  special  contract  limited 
its  responsibility  to  that  of  a  i)rivate  bailee  for  hire  it  is 
still  responsible  as  a  common  carrii'r.  A  proposition  in- 
volving so  obvious  a  contradiction  can  not  recpiire  further 
exposure. 

But  o))vious  as  the  fallacv  ami  error  contained  in  thecoun- 


[CH.  xiir. 


CH.  Xlll.] 


V  S  llE VO KT H  U  ( ■  Ah  K.S . 


447 


all  goods 
xl  by  the 
5  has  lini- 
loss  lias 
■act,  then 
it  thoujiii 
lat   caiisc 

KM-.       IJlJt 

ciiargcd 

1    is  til,. 

that   lie 

n'inc'iplcs 

person  is 

'  else  can 

who  arc 

•■  its  con- 
oiisi))i|it\- 

Now, 
ordinary 
own  st'i- 
m  he  lias 
()!•  a  htss 
his   case, 
his  con- 
rv  l)aiiee 
pon   that 
las  made 
to    deny 
'he  prop- 
)h'  this : 
:  limited 
ire  it   is 
ition   in- 
fui-ther 

he  coun- 


,sers  proposition  appear  t)  me,  the  proposition  itself  seems 
to  he  supported  i)y  tlie  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
California  in  thv  ease  of  Jloopey  i\  WelLs ;''■'  hy  t.he  Supremo 
Court  of  Minnesota  in  the  case  of  Chrifitcnxoii  v.  AnKwican 
Express  C'ompan>/,^'  and  hy  the  learned  editor  of  the  Ameri- 
can Law  Register  in  his  note  to  liie  fornu'r  case.^' 

In  the  first  case  the  carrier  made  a  contract  stipulatinii' 
that  he  would  not  be  responsible  exce^jt  as  forwaide"  The 
court  construed  the  contract  as  limiting  the  responsildlity  of 
the  carrier  to  that  of  a  forwarder  —  that  is,  of  an  ordinary 
bailee  for  hire — l)ut  they  held  the  carrier  responsible  for  a 
loss  occurring  on  a  tug  or  a  lighter  which  [jiied  between  the 
-hoi'e  and  n  ocean  steamer,  occasioned  by  the  negligence  of 
the  managers  of  the  tug,  although  they  were  not  subject  to 
the  control  oi'  orders  of  the  I'xpress  company.  In  resjjcct 
to  the  res[)onsibility  of  forwarders,  the  court  say:  "  Thev 
are  not  insurers  like  carriers,  but  they  are  lial)le  for  losses 
of  goods  while  in  their  custody,  resulting  from  negligence 
of  themselves,  and  those  they  em[)loy  in  their  business  of 
forwarders."  The  correctness  of  the  Hrst  i)art  of  this  pro- 
position can  not  Ix;  disputed,  nor  do  1  cjuestion  the  correctness 
of  the  latter  part,  if  ly  *'  those  whom  they  eni[)l()y  in  their 
business  of  forwarders,"  the  court  mean  those  who  are  the 
Forwarders  "  servants,  and  subject  to  their  control  and  orders, 
Tin-  court  further  say,  the  respoiisii)ility  of  a  forwarder  is 
tlu'  sanu'  as  that  of  a  waivhouscnian,  and  "  if  a  warehouse- 
man, instead  of  using  his  own  warehouse  and  employing 
his  own  subordinates,  should  for  a  stipulated  sum  paid  to 
the  owner  use  in  his  business  the  warehouse  of  another  per- 
.son  who  em[)loys  and  controls  the  subordinates,  there  can 
l)e  no  doul>t  that  he  would  be  liable  for  a  loss  of  the  goods 
Intruste'd  to  his  care,  occurring  while  in  his  possession  and 
resulting  from  the  negligence  of  such  subordinates,  although 
not  uiuler  his  control."      If  l)y  the  Mords  "intrusted  to  his 

• 

"J -J'/  Cal.  11  (1S(U). 

*'  i.")  Minn.  -270  (1S71I). 

'   Am.  Law  llcji-.  Nov.  ISO."),  p. :}(». 


i 

m 


UH 


TiiK  coxTnArTs  or  cai!I!Ii:k>. 


5  ri 
'I 

■'I 


'i.'j 


:i 


v^ 


[ 


Ctl.   MM, 


ciirc,"  llio  court  moan  to  siiiTiiost  a  ca.si'  where  the  warehouse- 
man has  a  contract  to  keep  the  uoods  in  his  own  warehouse, 
1  entirely  concur  in  th(!  proposition  stated.  Hut  if  they 
mean  that  a  warehousennm  who  viohitcs  no  contract  l>y 
rtnnoviiiij:  tlie  yoods  of  his  customer  fron>  his  own  warehouse 
into  that  of  another  prudent  warehouseman,  is  responsihle 
for  a  loss  of  the  jroods  residtiuir  from  the  n<'<jflii>('nce  of  the 
subordinate  of  such  other  warehouseman,  I  can  not  assent 
to  it. 

Supi)ose  a  warehousenuin's  warehouse  should  he  desti'oy«'d 
by  tiro,  it  would  bo  his  duty  to  riMuovc  sucii  of  the  iroods  of 
his  I'ustomors  as  were  saved  to  the  warehouse  of  some  other 
prudent  person,  aiul  it  OiUi  not  bo  insisted  that  he  would  be 
responsible  for  tlu^  loss  of  jifoods  occurrini!:  there,  resulting 
from  th(^  neirliirence  of  servants  of  tite  latter  warehouse- 
nnm. If  a  warehouseman  contract  to  keep  jroods  in  his 
own  warehouse,  and  he  should  remove  tJK'm  —  in  violation 
of  his  contract  —  to  anotiu'r  warehouse,  I  suppose  he  would 
be  liable  for  all  losses  there  oecui'rinir,  just  as  a  bailee  who 
hires  a  horse  to  <ro  to  a  particular  place  is  rcs|)onsible  for 
loss  or  injury  to  the  horse,  should  he  drive  or  ride  him  to  a 
different  place,  and  the  horse  be  lost  or  injured  in  the  pro- 
secution of  such  other  journey. 

Again,  the  court  say:  "The  fad  that  the  defendants 
nnule  use  of  various  public  conveyances,  their  messcn<rer 
with  the  treasure  trav'.'linjr  a  part  of  the  way  by  stage,  a 
part  by  steam-tug  and  light ci's,  and  a  part  l)y  oce:in  steam- 
er, makes  no  difference  as  to  their  liability.  For  defend- 
ants' purposes,  llio  managers  of  these  various  conveyances 
wore  their  agents  and  employees."'  If,  as  seems  U)  be 
concoded,  it  >vas  contemplated  I»y  l)oth  the  plaintiff  and 
defendants  that  the  defendants  would  not  use  their  own  ve- 
hielos,  but  the  conveyances  of  others  not  at  all  subject  to 
their  control  or  management,  and  that  in  the  use  of  those 
<tther  conveyances  the  defendants  did  not  violate  their  con- 
tract, I  can  not  admit  that  the  defendants,  who  by  the  ad- 
mission of  the  court  were  onlv  liable  as  ordinary  bailees  for 


•i)' 


[ni.  xnr. 
\ai'('li<)uso- 

iillcllOllSC, 

It  if  thcv 
lilrjicl  ])y 
\v;irehoii,so 
cspoiisihlo 
iM'C  of  Ihc 
not   ;i.ss<'iit 

(Icslrovcd 

'  LTootls  of 

nuv  otluT 

would  Itc 

.  I'csuMiiiii; 

varclioust'- 

kIs    in   liis 

II  violation 

lie  would 

bailee  who 

)iisil)|e  for 

e  him  to  a 

ill  the  pro- 

lefeiidants 
inesseuirer 
y  slair<'.  a 
an  steain- 
)i'  dofend- 
iiveyancos 
Mus  U)  l)e 
intiff  and 
ir  own  ve- 
nihjoel  to 
'  of  those 
their  eoii- 
)y  the  ad- 
lailee.s  for 


CH.  XIII.] 


UNREPORTKI)  CASES. 


4A9' 


hire,  were  responsible  for  h)ss  oeciisioncd  hv  the  nejrliffenoo 
of  the  managers  of  those  conveyances.  I  can  not  admit 
that  the  managers  of  those  other  conveyances  were  in  any 
legal  sense  their  agents  and  employees.  The  relation  of 
master  and  servant,  principal  and  agents  does  not  and  can 
not  exist  where  the  master  has  no  control  over  the  servant 
and  the  principal  no  control  over  the  agent. 

The  court  further  say  :  "  The  defendants  had  the  means 
of  holding  the  proprietors  of  those  various  vehicles  used  in 
their  business  of  expressmen  responsible  to  them,  had  they 
chosen  to  do  so.  If  they  did  not  take  the  proper  means  to  se- 
cure themselves  it  was  their  own  fault."  But  I  can  not  see 
how  any  argument  can  i)e  drawn  froiti  this  to  show  that  the 
defendants  were  responsible.  Every  bailee  or  depository 
may  hold  any  one  r(!sj)onsible  for  destroying  or  injuring 
goods  in  his  possession,  but  it  ii  not  be  maintained  that  he 
is  responsible  for  such  destrut  iion  or  injury  unless  he  by  his 
negligence  contribute  to  the  same.  Besides,  the  plaintiff 
had  his  remedy  against  the  projjrietors  of  those  other  con- 
veyances which  occ.'isioned  the  loss,^-'  and  it  might  be 
retorted  "  that  if  he  did  not  take  the  i)ropei'  means  to  secure 
himself  it  was  his  own  fault.'* 

In  the  Minnesota  case,  it  was  stipulated  that  the  carrier- 
'  was  not  to  be  held  lial)le  for  a  ly  loss  or  damage,  except 
as  forwarders  only,  or  for  any  loss  occasioned  by  the  [)erils 
of  navigation  and  transportation."  'J'he  goods  were  received 
at  New  York,  and  were  to  lie  delivered  to  Christenson  & 
Brother,  ^lankato,  .Minnesota.  When  the  goods  reached 
!St.  Paul  they  were  placed  by  the  carrier  on  board  the  steam- 
boat ••  Julia,"  a  boat  belonging  to  the  Northwestern  Union 
PaeiHe  C'ompaiiy,  and  managed  entirely  by  its  officers  and 
servants,  to  be  trans[)orted  to  Mankato.  The  goods  remained 
in  charge  of  the  «'arrier's  messenger.  The  boat  at  the  time 
of  the  accident  was  stronir  and  in  tfood  condition.  The 
carrier  was  i>uiltv  of  no  want  of  care  in  selectinii'  the 
**.lulia"    to    transport   the    goods,    but.  on    the    way,  the 

<-  New  .Icist'V  .Stciim  Xiiv.  Co.  v.  :M('ivli:Mits  Bunk.  ()  Wnv.    D-4-1  (IStS) 
"2H 


450 


TlIK  rONTKACTS  OK  CAIMMKKS. 


[ 


(;n.  xiK. 


".luliii"   was,  tlirouiili  tho  ('iin'l('s.snc.s.s  of  its  officers  and 
iiiaiiajrors,  run  a«xaiiist  a  snajj:  and  sunk,  whcivhv  tlu>  "oods 


T' 

ii.i 


K 


wore  damaged. 

The  court  say  that  the  carrier  is  not  (>.\enii)t  from  the  loss 
by  reason  of  the  stii)uhition  in  its  hill  of  ladinir  that  ••  it 
is  not  to  he  held  liahle  for  any  loss  or  daniaj^e  except  as 
forwarders,"  lu'cause,  they  say  :  "  In  our  opinion  *  * 
the  effect  claimed  for  this  clause  of  the  receipt  hy  tiie 
defendants  is  iiu'onsistent  with  and  repugnant  to  the  scope 
and  intent  of  the  result,  vicnved  as  a  whole,  and  in  connec- 
tion with  the  fact  showing  the  defendants'  real  character 
and  mode  of  doing  husness."  In  otiier  words,  the  ciuu-t 
held  that  the  defendants  were  conniion  carriers,  and  that  this 
<'lausc  of  their  receipt  did  not  modify  their  liahilit}'  at  nil. 
If  the  court  was  correct  in  this,  it  i>  indisputable  that  this 
clause  did  not  exempt  the  carrier  from  responsibility  for  the 
loss  elainuid. 

In  respect  to  tlu^  other  exceptions,  "perils  of  navigation 
and  transportation,"  the  court  say :  "The  exception  does 
not  excuse  the  carrier  for  negligently  running  into  perils  of 
the  kind  mentioned.  The  pi'oper  consti'uction  [of  •^ueli 
words]  is  analogous  to  that  which  is  put  upon  the  words 
'  p«'rils  of  the  sea  "  in  bills  of  lading.  While  thus  it  would 
seem  very  proper  to  hold  that  a  snag  in  one  of  oui'  weslerii 
rivers  is  a  peril  of  navigation,  as  ajjpears  to  have  been  duiw. 
in  Tennessee,  if  a  v<!ssel  is  wrecked  ui)on  oiw  through  the 
negligence  of  the  <'an'ier  or  of  those  whom  he  employs     * 

*  *  the  carrier  is  not  absolved.  Under  such  eircum- 
stances  the  loss  is  properly  attributed  to  the  agency  of  man, 
not  to  a  peril  of  navigation," 

Hero  again  we  have  the  same  fallacies  and  misleading 
propositions  which  have  been  exposed  in  a  former  part  of 
this  opinion.  The  sinking  of  a  l»oat  by  running  (ui  a  snag 
in  (me  of  our  western  rivers  is  undoubtedly  a  "  peril  of 
navigation."  It  is  none  the  less  a  i)eril  of  navigation  though 
it  occur  by  the  fault  of  the  |)erson  navigating  the  boat.  It 
is  wholly  misleixling  to  say  that   it  is  a  peril  of  navigation 


<;m.  Mil. 


icers  and 
lie  gofxl.y 


1  the  johjc 

tluil  "  it 

'xccpl    us 

t  l)>  tlie 
li(^  Slope 
1  t'oimcf- 
«'li!iracl(>r 

ho    fnlllt 

Ulmt  tiiis 
ty  at  ;ill. 
limt  this 
ty  for  t lie 

liivigatidii 

tioii  docs 

perils  (tf 

[of  s  11  ell 

he  >vor<ls 

it  \v<iul{J 

■  weslmn 

)een  iUnw. 

rou;j,h  the 

iploys     * 

h  eiinuii- 

i'  of  mail, 

ii.slea<liii<>' 
r  part  of 
»n  a  .siiasr 
'  peril  of 
)ii  though 
l)oat.  It 
aviuation 


CM.  xm.] 


UNKKPOUTKD  CASKS. 


451 


when  it  results  from  aeeldeut  and  without  fault,  and  that  it 
is  not  a  peril  of  navigation  when  it  results  from  luxdi'MMiee. 
When  go(Mls  are  lost  by  reason  of  such  peril,  oecasioned  hy 
the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  the  carrier  is  responsiltle,  not 
Itecause  the  goods  are  lost  hy  an  excei)ted  peril,  hut  l)eeause 
lie  has  brought  about  the  peril  througli  his  own  carelessness 
or  negligence.  He  is  made  responsibh;  for  his  negligence, 
not  because  he  is  a  common  carrier,  but  because  he  is  <>uiltv 
of  negligence  and  has  occasioned  loss  therel)v. 

In  the  lK)oks  which  treat  of  common  carriers,  only  those 
carriers  are  treatetl  of  who  use  their  own  conveyances ; 
hcnee  it  is  we  often  tind  it  stated  that  the  exception  "  perils 
of  the  sea,"  or  "  |)erils  of  the  river,"  included  in  the  car- 
rier's bill  of  lading,  does  not  include  losses  arising  from 
what  would  l)e  generally  understood  to  be  "  i)erils  of  tiie 
sea,"  when  occasioned  by  the  negligence  of  the  servants  of 
the  carrier.  In  such  i-ase,  tlie  carrier  being  the  owner  of  the 
vessel  in  which  the  goods  arc  carried,  and  i)eing  responsible 
for  its  careful  navigation,  it  is  not  material  in  effect  whether 
it  is  held  that  a  loss  arising  from  an  excejited  i)eril  brought 
about  by  his  negligence,  is  not  a  [)i'ril  of  navigation  within 
the  meaning  of  the  bill  of  lading,  or  that  the  carrier  is 
resp()nsii)Ie  for  a  loss  occasioned  by  the  negligence  of  his 
s(!rvants,  but  it  is  better  and  mort'  correct  to  place  the  lia- 
bility in  such  case  on  the  latter  ground,  because  to  place  it 
on  the  former  is  misleading. 

Certaiidy,  as  the  court  say:  "The  exception  does  not 
excuse  th<'  carrier  for  negligently  running  into  perils, 
'  *  *  *  nor  shall  he  be  heard  to  set  n\)  his  own  negli- 
genci>  to  excuse  him  from  responsibility."  lUit  in  the  case 
before  the  court,  no  negligence  "liis  im[)uted  to  the  carrier. 
lie  did  not  attempt  to  set  up  his  own  negligence  to  excuse 
himself  from  r(>sponsibility.  He  set  u[)  that  by  the  con- 
tract h(!  was  not  to  be  liable  for  losses  arising  from  the  per- 
ils of  navigation,  and  Ik;  showed  that  the  loss  did  arise  from 
a  peril  of  navigation,  without  any  fault  on  his  part.  He 
was  not  responsil)le  for  the  negligence  of  the  nuuiJigers  of 


'°  i 


'^n 


y 


f!i.-" 


^ 


452 


Tin:  CONTKACTS  (11-  CAIMMKIJS. 


[CII.  XIII, 


the  boat,  as  I  have  hcfoiv  sliow  ii,  hccaiisc  \\{>  had  no  ('(Uilrol 
or  authority  over  llu'iii,  and  as  he  (-(Uild  he  hchi  icsponsiMc 
in  the  case  only  for  iic^liiicnc*',  it  woiihl  sccin  he  was  not 
liable  at  all.  1  think  that  the  eonrt  was  misled  by  the  def- 
inition of  "perils  of  na\  i<i;'i(»n  "  which  is  found  in  the 
books. 

Clearly,  that  is  none  the  less  a  ••  peril  of  naviiration  "  or 
a  "  i)eril  of  the  sea,"  because  i1  is  attributable  to  tlie  a<i"ency 
of  man.  The  very  case  whicii  is  «;-enerally  used  to  detliie 
and  explain  what  is  a  "  peril  of  the  sea,""  is  that  of  a  e(»l- 
lision  broiiirht  about  by  neiili^icnce.  If  a  carrier's  vessel 
should  collide  at  sea  with  anotlu-r  vessel,  lhrou<rh  the  fault 
wholly  <»f  tlu' latter,  it  is  everywhere  admitted  that  he  would 
not  be  responsible  for  a  loss  arisinir  from  such  collision,  of 
•roods  which  he  was  carrvinir  under  a  bill  of  ladiiiir  that 
exemi)ted  him  from  responsibility  f(»r  loss  ai-isiny  from 
"perils  of  naviiration  "  or  "  jjerils  of  the  sea,"  and  yet. 
undoubtedly,  the  collision  in  such  ease  is  attributabh<  to  the 
agency — nay,  to  the  negliu't'iice — of  man. 

I  have  a  profound  respect  for  the  opinions  of  the  learned 
courts  Avhich  I  have  here  noticed,  but  I  think  that  they 
are  opposed  to  the  ireneral  current  of  authorities — that  they 
lire  founded  on  fallacious  and  misleatlinu"  jtropositions,  and 
that  they  disregard  the  well-settled  principles  of  law. 

The  motion  for  a  new  trial  is  overruled. 

\oTK. —  'l'hi>  (•;!<(>  \\;is  siil)s('(iii(Mitiy  rcvri'st'd  liy  tlif  SiiiMciiii'  Cimil 
of  tlic  I'liiti'd  Slates,  aiul  is  iiiscrlcd  hero  a«  sui  illiistfalimi  ef  a  doelrim; 
now  olisdlete.     See  aiili'.  Cap,  X.  ji  '2X\. 


Tlie  following!'  dooisioii  const  in  in;;  liie  IlliMois  Statute  flxin;;  tiie  liiil)il- 
ity  of  ooinnioii  can'icrs  rcceivinj^  projierty  for  Iransporlation.  has  boeii 
rendered  since  the  tith'  to  tliis  tliapter  was  printed.  'J'lie  statnte  in  (|ueR- 
tion  Is  a.s  fellows :  ••  Th.-it  wlicnevtM-  any  property  is  received  by  a  eoin- 
mon  carrier  to  be  transported  from  one  ]ilaee  to  another  within  or  with- 
out this  Stale,  it  shall  not  he  lawful  for  such  carrier  to  limit  his  conunon 
law  liability  safely  to  d«'liver  such  properly  at  the  place  to  whicli  the 


CM.   XIII. 


(II.   XIII.] 


I'XIiKI'OlJTKI)  CASKS. 


46a 


<>  <(mtr()l 
q)()iisili|t. 
was  not 
'  the  (Icf- 
kI  ill  [\h- 

itioii  "  (ir 
H'  iiii^'iicy 
to  tlctliic 
<»f  ii  col- 
's   vessel 
the  fault 
lie  would 
lisioii,  (»f 
(liii^f  dial 
iiij:'  from 
and  yt'f. 
UU'  to  tUc 

('  Ic.irncd 
llial  they 
•that  they 
ions,  and 

[IW. 


I'liif  C'uiiil 
ii  ilorlriiu; 


sillH'  i-i  I.,  !).•  tr;lll>lM.|tfil.  I,y  ;iMy    -llplil.ilinil     •!'  lilllilulioll   cxim-ssca   ill 
tin'  ivf.'ipl  ^Ivcii   fdr^iicli  |in>|)..ity."     K.  S.  111.  (ISSO).  Cup.  27.  ii  1.  p. 

■n\:\. 


tlic  liiihil- 
1.  liiis  liccii 

to  ill  (pit;s- 

by  !i  ('(tin- 
iii  or  willi- 
is  coiiiinon 

wliicli  tht' 


MxTiiKii  V.  .\Mi-.itif  \N   KxntKss  Company. 

Initeil  Sloli.i  fir,, lit  Cmrt,  .Viirlln-rn  DMi-Wt  •</  llliin'in,  l-'ihriiiirn,  IK-'fl, 

Mcfiiri-  Moil.  IlKMtv  W.  Ili.itiH.Kir,  Disiilit  .Imlni'. 

I'lio  sliitiili' i,f  Illinois  ))i()liil)lilii^  II  I'linirr  hoiu  liuiilliiK  lii-<  rDimimn  law  Uii- 
lillil.v  (lot's  not  iilfi'cl  his  lijilil  to  icsOict  his  liiiliility  to  ii  (cvliiin  imiDinit 
wlu'l'r  flic  viiliM'  of  (111?  piiipciiy  rciclvcil  i^  usUcd  niiil  iiol  nivcn. 

Hi.onoKTT  .1 : 

This  case  was  liicii  1)y  llii'  i-ii\ir!  witiioiil  a  jury,  iiiioii  an  a<:;rfM-(l  stale 
(if  fuels.  Ilie  facts  hciiifj;  in  >iil)s|ancc  ilial  a  pa('l<a.u;c  conlaiiiinj;'  two  j^old 
wafelies.  anil  live  ;^oi(l  ciiains.  ami  wortli  sonictliiii;;  over  iiTAW.  was 
delivered  to  IIk^  a;;-cnt  of  tlic  Sonllicni  Kxprcss  Company,  at  I$clliany. 
(icorj^ia.  dii'cctcd  to  the  i)laintiff  In  tills  city.  'I'lic  Sonthcrn  lOxin'css 
(  )iiipany  accepted  the  packajic  and  furwardcd  ii  to  Cairo  in  tills  State, 
wiicre  it  wa<  delivered  to  liic  .\ni"rican  i'lypics  Company-,  who  nndcr- 
todlv  its  transpoi'latiiiii  lo  tills  city,  ilic  Soutiicrn  I'ixprcs*  ( 'oniiiany  not 
ninnln;;'  to  this  point. 

\o  vatiie  was  niarke(|  upon  the  packauc  The  receipt  j>;lveii  to  tlie 
cdiisij^nor  staled  ••  vahie  asiicd.  hut  not  jiivcn.""  The  packaj^e  was  lost 
after  arriviiii;  In  this  city,  by  theft,  hy  reason  of  Its  not  liavinj;'  Iteen 
treated  as  a  valnahle  packajj;e.  and  placed  in  tiie  safe  where  it  would  liav(' 
been  placed  if  its  tiaie  \alne  had  lieen  tnaiked  upon  it. 

Snil  is  lironj^ht  by  the  plaintiff,  and  the  (|nestion  is  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  recovery  to  wiilch  he  is  entitled.  Tlie  defendant  admits  that  it  is 
llal)le  to  the  anioiint  of  s."i().  there  lieiim'ii  provision  in  tiie  receipt  j^iveii 
for  lliis  paekai^e.  that  where  the  value  of  a  packaije  N  not  slateil  oi- dls- 
closed  to  tlie  company,  the  liability  should  be  limited  to  .*!.")ti.  The 
plaintiff  insists  tliat  the  ease  comes  witliin  tiie  provisions  of  the  act  of 
|s7'J.  of  tlie  I,e,>;'islatnre  of  Illinois,  which  indlilblls  any  common  carrier 
from  limitin.i;- its  liabiliiy.  1  do  not  tliiiik.  inthellrst  plac(-.  that  tiilscase 
comes  witiiin  this  provision.  lie(  anse  this  was  a  conlract  of  cnrriajijt!  made 
in  the  State  of  (Jeoriila.  ainl  the  jiarties  conid  make  any  contract  wiileli 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  (ieorj;ia  iiermitted  them  to  make,  and  tlio  laws  of 
tiiat  State  alhiweil  a  carrier  to  limit  liis  liability.  Wallace  v.  Mattiu^ws, 
:<!)  (Ja.  (117  (ISd'.i). 

But  waivin^j  tlie  (piestion  as  to  wiieiiier  tills  contract  is  to  be  eonstrued 
l)y  the  laws  of  (Jeor^jia  or  Illinois. 

I  do  not  think  tliat  the  statute  of  Illinois  intended  lliata  eommoii  car- 
rier should  be  prevented  from  Mmltinjj  Its  liability  where  It  asked  for  the 
value  of  the  eominodity  of  wljieh  it  undertook  tlie  traiisiiortation.  iind  the 
information  recpiested  is  w  Itldield.     It  seems  to  me  that  Is  one  of  those 


t"      I 


4.')4 


TIIK  CONTIIACTM  OF  t'Altltl K.UH.  [(11.   Mil. 


V- 


r«'tisoiiat>l<>  |)i'<M-initiiiiis  wlilcli  a  ciiiiiindii  t'.'ii  rliT  liiii  ii  t'i<;lil  to  (Iciiiainl: 
iiitd  whtMT  a  st'alnl  iii'  clust-d  |ia<'ka;;'i-  l->  pri-si-nli  il.  ami  tlic  valnc  is  a^ki'il 
ami  IIm^  <-<iiisi;riiiir  iffiiscs  to  tllm'lnHi'  |i.  tlic  t-arricr  lias  a  ri;;lil.  it  si-i-in, 
to  ini>.  |.>  liiiiit  it"  lialillily  to  a  tlxni  <imii.  ami  "ay  it  will  iimicriai.i 
til)' li'aiis|)iii'latioii  on  tin*  a>>iiiii|itioii  tiial  it  i>  imt  wdiili  iivir  a  ri'itain 
.xiiiii.     It  x't'iiis  lu  III)'  roinpctiMit  for  a  coininnii  ranirr  ,  niiil<T  tli<>  llliii- 

iiois  statu!)',  t))  n>)|iiii'('  a  ^iiipiMT  of  <; Is  to  >tat)>  tlii'  value  w  lii)'li  Im' 

puts  upon  tlii'in.  aii)l  to  stipiilat)'  that  in  )'a.s(>  of  loss  tin-  lialillit>  ot  tin' 
cairiiT  sli.ill  iDit  )>x)')'(')l  til)' annmnt  sollx)'il;  ami  if  this  can  Id- tloiii'.  I 
can  >)'('  ID)  ;;'oo)l  D'asmi  wiiv  tli)'  iMri'i)'r  may  not  say  tlial  \\  licri  tlii'  <lii|)pi'i 

r)'fiis)'s  to  )li»)'los)'  til)'  valii)'.  til)'  iialiility  )if  tin'  cani)'i'  >lMiMi)|  iMit  )'xc I 

a  )'i'flain  anioiiiit.  This  i«  )-i|nival<'nt  to  a  «p)')'ial  ajiD-i'im-nt  lictwccn 
the  parti)'s  tliat  for  tin'  piirpiis)'s  of  ijic  cmiliacl  ))f  cai'iia;;)'.  lli)>  valm'  i>i 
till'  <f)»i(ls  is  lixi'il  at  >r!''tO,  Till'  facts  in  this  ca-i'  >lio\\  tliat  tin-  sj-mlcr  ot 
til)'  pa)'ka;ii'  was  in  ilic  iialiil  of  sJiippinu-  packa;;c>  liy  tin'  Sonlhi'iii 
Kxpicss  ('(iinpany.  ami  thi-  clause  rcstii)'iinj;-  lialillily  t.i  >i')0  wIiiti'  IIh' 
valiD'  was  not  ilis)'los)'il.  was  in  all  tiM'ir  i)'<')'i|ils  <ilvcii  t)ir  pai'ka^jji's  tak)ii 
f))i' shipnicnl.  ami  iiiii>t  liav)'  liccn  kimw  nlo  him.  TId'  )'iinti'acl  \vlii)'ii 
wasi^ivi-nto  liiiii  l>y  tin- ajjcnl  -taD'il  tiial  llic  valni' was  ask)'(l  liiil  imi 
^iv)'ii. 

It  is  triM'  that  tin'  packay,)'  was  niaik)'il  ••  watclii's."  lail  the  valiii'-  nj 
\\a!i'li)'s  vary  sn  widely  thai  no  picsinnpliun  ihat  the  valiii'  of  die  -.hiii- 
ineiit  ex)i')'d)M|  .Sr>()  i>  rai-cd  liy  tic  >iaiciiiciit  of  it-  coiiiiMii-.  I  inii«i, 
tli)'r)'fiii'c.  assnmi'  that  tin'  con-iuiior  was  conicni  Hi  aei  I'pt  ih)'  sum  u| 
•S.")().  a- til)' I'nuivalcnt  of  iId' content-  of  thi-  packan'.- if  it  was  lost  in 
transit.  'I'nie.  tli)'  proof  ^hows  iiti'  havi-  ln'cii  woilh  more  ihaii  that.  Imi 
it  als)»  shows  tliat  the  I'har;;')'-  of  Ih  ■  cani)'r  wi're  re;::ilaled  by  the  value- 
.•iml  that  lliire  wa--  a  iliffi'n'iic)'  in  the  care  iak)'ii  of  jiackap's  when 
the  \alm'  was  slated  and  tiio-e  on  wliii-h  im  \alm'  was  -taii'il;  and  ii 
M'l'iiis  to  III)' 'o  rca-oiialile  thai  a  carrier  slniiiid  lieeiitilliil  to  kimw  liie 
valiD' of  |iropert.\  which  it  iimh-riaki'- to  iiaiispori.  tint  1  can  not  Id'Hcm' 
the  I.)';;'is!alMre  of  Illinois  intendeil  to  prohihil  tlii'  liinilaliini  of  Iialiility 
iiiailc  hy  this  cinlrtici  wId'Ii  the  consi;'nor  ri'fiised  to  di^clo-)'  the  value. 

Tlie  i^siie  is  found  for  til)'  plaintiff,  ami  "laniaec-,  ,|— i.^-cd  at  *."iO.  and 
plaintiff  iiiiist  recovi-r  )')ist.s.  .as  tiii-  -nil  nri;;;inali'd  in  the  siat)-  court  and 
was  remove))  to  lliis  court  In  ih'femlaiu. 


i 


u 


•M.   Xlll. 


(  I'.   Mil. 


INItKI'OUTKI)  (  ASK.s. 


455 


iliMiiiitnl : 

1*  icki'il 

it     SCflll. 

llltTtilKc 
.1  fflMlliii 

llic  llliii- 
whii'li  In- 
ly III  111, 

>i'  tlolic.  I 

■  «liii)|iir 

'I  cxi't'i'd 
ln'lw  cch 
Millie  oj 
I'llilri'  III 
Sdiilliri  II 
"  lllTC  III, 
l,Uf«  l.iki  II 
ii'l  wliii'li 
(I  lint   iim 


PASSKNCKIIS-  ri<'Ki;rs-((»NI)rn(»Nsi'|{INTKI>TIIKItK. 
IN  -NOTICi:. 


Ill  liKI':    \.   Sol  TIIKASTKItN    1{.('(). 

A'(/;/(('»7(    ///';//'   ('"lift   I'/  ./iintii-i  .    r, 11,11111,11    I'/in.i    t/liixi,,,,,    \,,n,,il„',-.    !.s71». 

|{l;;lii  IImm.  I,oi!I»  Cui.KHiiKir.  I.uni  Cliii'l  .lii>iic('. 
Sir  Wii.i.i  \M  Ji'oiUKT  <;iiovi;.  Km.,   j 

linn.  (;i;ul!i,|,   jlKNMAN.  ! 

Sir  Nai  II  \Mi;i,  l.isni.KK  Km..  i  'I""';.'"'-. 

••  llKNin  ('.  l,iM'4.-.  Km..  J 

Wiicn-  a  lickcl.  I"i;i'i|   liy  ii  r:riliii;ii|  iiimpiiny  in    IviizImikI  fur  ji  juiinicv 

fl l-nlldnn  III   |*;lli..   \\i|~  in    llir  jiil'in  III    M   .|ll:ill    liimk  ill'    I'ii|||hi||s. 

•  •licju-il'd    ill    ;i    |i;i|)i'r   I'UVIM'.  illlil    lln'    |);i|HT   loViT   ciillliiilicil    jirililccl 

iiiiilicr:  II,  III.  iliiii  ilii'  iMiiiiiMfl  \v;i-  (■.■ii:aiiici|  in  ijh'  wiiolr  Ijimk  iii- 
.liKliiiy:  llii'  ciiviT.  ami  lliMl  ilii'  Kiiy;li-li  (•iiiii|iaiiy  wi-rc  pnilccliMi  l»y 
iii'iimlilinii  I  ni  111  I'll  mi  iln'in^iiltMirji.auciwddr  ihr  ruvi'r.  ami  i'xi'iii|il- 
Mi;;  lliciii  iruin  lialiijiiy  I'm-  ijaimiiir  iinairi'i'il  oii  lln'  j^'rciicli  i  lilioad. 
.ililiiiiij;|i  ilii'  |ia"i'iiuvr  liail  m>l  read  ni'  imlii'i'ij  ijic  ciimliliiiii. 

Motion  fur  jiKluniriil . 

TIic  iictiuii  \v;is  tried  ill  .liii!ii;il\  ,  1N7'.',  Iicfdrc  ( '(»(  ijii  i;.\, 
('.  .1..  aiid  ;i  >|ii'ci;il  jin'\ ,  uiiil  \\a>  liroiiulil  l»y  the  |)l:iiiitift' 
;i'jfjiiii-l  tlir  (icI'iiKlaiit^  111  I'ccovrr  (liiiiiap's  for  |»(i'.-(i!ial  iii- 
jiii'ii'-  •.(istaiiicd  ill  a  railway  accident  oii  the  (ireat  Nortlieni 
Ivailway  of  I-'iMiice.  wliile  the  plaiiititT  \va-  retiirniiii:'  from 
I'arix  l»y  \iriiic  (»('  a  reliini  ticket  i->iicil  to  liiiii  \)\  iheth-- 
1'eiidaiits. 

Tlie  ticket  is-ih"i  to  tile  piaiiitirt"  \va^  not  an  ordinary  rail- 
way ticket,  iiiit  wa~  a  little  liook  oF  a  do/en  paii'es  coiitaiii- 
iiiif.  witiiiii  a  paper  cover,  coupons  to  lie  torn  out  and  ii:iveii 
up  at  the  usual  >(aite-  of  the  journey.  ( )ii  the  outside  of 
the  cover  was  printed  "No.  7. ;)r>l .  Southeastern  liailway. 
(  heap  return  ticket.  London  to  I'aris  and  hack.  Second 
c|a->.  AxailaMelty  niuht  service  only.  Thisticket  isavail- 
al»le  for  fourteen  day-,  including' the  day  of  issue  and  expiry. 
*  ■'  *  Availalile  for  the  I'cturn  journey  by  the  Southeast- 
ern, or  London.  Chathain.  and  Dover  Kailways."  On  the 
iii>idi'  of  thecoxcr.  that  is.  on  pap'  two.  the  foUowinji' among' 


!!l 


IT)*; 


TIIK  CONTKACTS  OF  CAIMMKI.'S. 


[.-... 


Mil. 


I  ,  « 


IS    vj..^i"    - 


(ttli(!i' ^lalciMciils,  were  prinlcd  :  —  •' Tlu"  covor  without  tlic 
coupons,  or  llic  coupons  williout  the  cover,  arc  of  no  value. 
*  *  *  lOach  company  incurs  no  responsihilitv  of  am  Ivind 
l)eyoii(l  what  arises  in  connection  with  its  own  ti-aiii>  and 
hoats,  in  conse(|;ience  of  pa>sen<i'ers  heiuii'  Ixxtked  to  Iraxci 
over  the  railways  of  other  companies,  >nch  tlirouiiii  Imi()I<- 
inu'  l)«'inii' only  for  the  co.ivenieiicc  of  passenii'crs."  At  tlie 
trial  the  i)Iainlift'  .-wore  that  his  attention  w.is  not  <ha\Mi  to 
the  ahove  coiKhtion.  'I'he  (|el'en«hiiits  did  not  disi)utc  the 
truth  of  this  slatenieiit.  i)ul  I'elied  on  the  condition. 

Ill  suinmin;:-  up.  the  learned  chief  justice  >aid  to  the  iur\  : 

"  They  (the  defendants)  have  a   perre<t  riirht    t ake  thai 

condition  with  the  passenger,  and  to  >lipulatc  that  thev  ^ha!l 
not  he  responsihie  for  the  neuliii'eiicc  of  the  other  conipain  . 
hut  they  must  take  care  that  they  hrini:  liiat  condition  jioiiie 
t(f  the  knowleflii'e  <d'  the  passcnj^cr  ;  or,  at  all  e\cnts.  that 
they  d(»  what  in  the  opinion  <d'  the  jnry  is  reasonaldv  sutiici- 
ent  to  <;ive  him   that    knowlevlu't'.  ■  'rher<'  is  iuiti!- 

iiiji"  to  direct  the  attention  to  the  inside.  Vou  nia\-  happen 
to  open  it  .•ind  see  scune  printed  matter  t  lu  .e.  ()uL;ht  vtui 
to  as,-.uinc  that  that  printecl  matter  i.-  a  condition  that  Mm 
ouiiht  to  make  youiself  ma-ler  hel'ore  you  walk  off  uitli 
your  ticket  after  payiiii;-  your  money?  That  is  the  (|ue-tioii 
f<»r  y(»u,  and  you  will  say  wlicther  what  is  done  Ikmc  i>  rca- 
s()nal)ly  sutlicieiit  on  the  part  cd"  the  company  to  hi'in;:-  to  the 
knowledire  (  I'  the  peix'ii  takini:'  the  ticket  that  there  arc 
some  conditions  tliere  a ffect i nti'  his  ordinary  ri^'ht  as  a  pM>- 
senji«'r,  which  it  would  Ik-  incumhent  upon  lite  companv  to 
take  care  to  l»rin:>' to  his  notice."  'I'he  jury  found  that  tliei'c 
was  not  sutlicieiit  notice  iiixcn  hy  the  company,  and  a  veidici 
was  thereupon  directed  for  the  |)Iaintitf  for  the  airreecl  .-urn. 
leaving- him  to  move  to  enter  judiiuicnt . 

M<- 1  III, /,■<■,  (J.  ^',,and  l!(tni(inl,  for  the  plaintiff,  now 
moved  aecordiniiiy,  an<l  contende<l  that  Ufinlcrsou  r.  .Sfcrru- 
siDi,  controlled  tl;e  case.^' 

*••  F>.  Ii'.  --'Sc.  A  l.Mv.  17(1  (IS7.")). 


'•II.   Mil. 


I  II.   XIII.] 


r.NKKI'OliTKI)  CASKS. 


457 


H»Ut    llic 

K)  value. 
:iny  kind 
liii-  Mild 
<•  li'avci 

.\t  liii- 

I'M U  II     1,1 

iidc   ihc 


."-^ir  //.  >S.  a !{}',, r<l,  SolicitoM  icncriil,  and  /irr„ni'-,\  lor 
llir  tU'fciMlants. 

liord  ('oi.KiMixii:.  ('.  .1.  : 

'I'liis  is  ail  ac(i(>ii  l)r(»uu'Iit  I)v  the  iilaiiitiiT  apiiiist  tlic 
S(»iitln'asti'rii  IJailway  ("onipany  lo  n-covcr  damages  for 
licr.-oiiai  iiijiirio  wliicii  iiappciicd  to  liim  in  Fi-ancc  \vliil>t 
l)('iii<:-  cai'iicd  l)y  a  Frcncli  railway  coinpany  under  a  llirouiiii 
lickol  i>sii('d  hy  tlic  (Icfciidants.  \\v  have  hcfort'  us  ;i  copv 
of  (lie  ticket  wliicli  tlic  dcfciidaiils  issued,  and  it  appears 
tiiat  it  'vas  ill  t lie  followiiiii'  form.  [Tlic  learned  judii-e  then 
reaii  the  printed  matter  wliidi  appeared  u[>on  the  outside 
of  the  ticket .  1  'I'lierc  that  pajj>c  end.-.  'I'hcii  on  the  first 
pane  inside  are  a  mimiicr  of  teriiiN  rclatiiiii'  to  various  parts 
of  the  coiiti'ijct,  .1  li'ood  deal  of  it  rcfcrrini:'  lo  luuii'aii'c, 
amon<.''>t  otiier  conditions  a  condition  that  the  Kii<rlish  coiii- 
|)aiiy  arc  not  to  he  respon-iliie  for  injuries  to  luiigau'e.  and 
then  comes  the  condition  upon  which  the  defendant-  now 
rely  :  ••  ICach  <'oinpaiiy  incurs  no  roponsihility  of  an\  kind, 
beyond  what  arises  in  connection  with  its  own  trains  and 
boats,  ill  conse<|ueiii'e  of  pas>eni:i'rs  lieiiii.'-  Iiooke<!  to  traxcl 
over  the  railways  of  other  companies. ""  Now  that  is  the 
<'oiuruioii  or  term  upon  which  the  defendant-  rely,  and 
they  <ay  tiiat  this  injury  having'  happened  in  France  tliev 
arc  not  responsible  for  it.  That  /iriitid  fdi-ir  would  i»e  a 
U'ood  answer  to  the  action  :  Itiit  the  plaintiff,  r«'l\iiii:"  on  the 
decision-  of  thi-  and  otlu'i'  court-,  took  the  opinion  (d'  the 
jury  on  one  <|Uestioii.  which  was,  whether  the  defendants 
had  given  Die  plaintiff  iiroper  notice  oi'  tlii-  condition,  and 
the  jiirv  Jiiisweri'd  that  oueslion  in  the  neiiative.  Tiiev  niav 
be  taken  for  the  purposes  of  my  decision  to  have  found, 
takin;.!'  it  in  the  stronue.-l  way  apiiiist  the  defeiidan'is,  that 
the  plaintiff  did  not  read  the  ccnditioii,  thouiih  I  think  no 
aftinnativc  evidence  was  niven  of  the  fact.  1  will  assume, 
however,  that  the  jilaintiff  lu'ither  read  that  eoiidition  nor 
knew  of  its  existence,  whether  I  think  thai  i>  a  proba- 
ble (U-  an  improbabli'  sujiposition.  'I'heii  comes  the  (pies- 
lioii,  does  thai   affortl  any  answer  lo   the  defendanrs  plea  ? 


-ri  !■   i* 


458 


TIIK  rONTKACT!^  OF  f'AKIMKKS. 


CU.  XI'l 


I 


11  iin^  o\)\ 


nioii  it  affords  iioiio.     Tlu'  coiilnut,  as  I   uiulcr- 


Ei>  \ 


hi 


If  •' 

11" 


lill 


stand  it,  is  simply  this  little  book  f)r  ticket,  and  the  whole 
of  this  little  hook.  This  is  the  eontraet,  and  the  terms  ((.n- 
tained  in  it  are  the  terms  ui)on  which  the  defendants  aurccd 
to  take  the  plaintiff  to  Paris  and  hack  :  and  in  an  ordinary 
case  that  would  he  a  matter  heyond  dispute.  Hut  it  is  sup- 
posed that  with  reference  to  this  peculiar  sul)jecl-matti  r, 
with  reference,  that  is,  to  dis'putes  helwcen  passengers  and 
railway  comi)anies,  some  distinction  has  heen  introduced  li\ 
decisions  of  the   hii>hesl    tribunals.      Now,    it    is   of  coui-c 


oh 


vu)us  that  llf'nilprsi))}  r.  Stcrrnsiui,^^  decided  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  1)inds  this  court,  and  that  we  must  obey  it  ,  and 
an  :ittenipl  has  Itceii  made  to  assimilate  this  case  to  the 
case  of  Jlciiih'ixd}!  r.  .Sti'rciixo)).  In  that  case  the  fa<ts  wtic 
that  there  was  a  contract  to  take  a  passenu'i'r  from  Dublin 
to  Whitehaveii,  anil  a  condition  which  it  was  souiihl  tn 
a})pend  to  that  contract  was  printed  on  the  other  side  of  tlic 
ticket  limitini!' the  responsil)ility  of  the  company.  On  th( 
same  side  of  the  caril  as  that  on  which  •*  Dublin  to  NVhiti- 
haven  ■'  was  printed  thei'e  was  no  reference  at  all  to  the 
father  side,  and  it  was  said  that  the  one  side  oidy  fornn  d 
the  contract,  Ix'cause  there  was  no  reference  whatever  to 
the  other  side  upon  it  ;  and  the  jury  found  that  the  plaintiff 
assumed — and  had  a  riuht  to  assume — that  the  one  side  u'i 
the  card  contained  the  whole  of  the  contract.  That  wa-- a 
case  of  luir<.!:a<ie  ;  so  that  takinji'  tin*  one  side  of  the  ticket 
as  the  whole  of  the  contract,  there  woidd  arise  u|)on  it  lh( 
ordinary  common  law  contract:  and  the  House  of  Luid- 
held  that  there  was  no  evidence  of  any  other  contract  bi- 
yond  the  common  law  contract.  It  is  not  for  me  to  t'xpic-- 
any  oj)inion  as  to  wlu'ther  the  jury  came  to  a  vhAxX  conclu- 
sion upon  the  facts.  We  have  only  to  look  at  the  law  laid 
down  by  the  House  of  Lords  upon  those  facts.  If  in  such  a 
case  as  this  the  House  of  Lords  had  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  in  a  piece  of  paper  like  this  the  whole  of  the  contiact 
was  limited  to  the  first  side  of  the  tirst  page  out  of  the-c 

«  L.  K.  1  Sc.  it  Div.  170  (I.S7.-)). 


'H.   Xl'l 


cir.  XIII.] 


rNKKl'OUTEO  rASES. 


4.")!) 


t(Mi  or  iwelvo  l)iigc.s,  1   agree  thsit   Ihndermii.  i:.  iSf('veiis<»i 
would  l)e  in  jjoiiit   and  would  be  l)inding  upon  us.     But  it 
:i|»[ieiir.s  to  me  that  the  facts  of  this  ease  are  entirely  different, 
and  that  tin;  very  broadest  distinetion  can  be  drawn  Ix'tween 
tiie  two.      This  tieket   is   simply  a  liook  whieh  contains  a 
great  many  i)ages,  and  it   is  not  'bsputed  that  the  whole  of 
(he  leave-  of  this  little  book  are  during  the  execution  of  the 
contract  to  t)e  made  use   of.     The  passengei-  eau  not  turn 
the  very  first  page,  and  niak<'  use  of  the  very  lirst  eoui)on, 
without    iitiviug  under  his  eye  the  terms  on  which  the  com- 
pany now  rely.      It   i-^  not   a  case  in  wiiich  the  first  side  of 
tlu^   lirst  sheet   could    contain    the   whole;   of    the    contract, 
l)e(;ausc  it  is  admitted  that  all  the  coupons,  at  anyi'ate,  form 
part  of  the  contract.      If  page  one,  and  also  pages  three  to 
eU.'veii,  fornj  part  of  the  I'ontract,  on  what  ground  is  page 
two  to  l)e  reject (.'d?     'I'he  company  say  that  this  is  the  con- 
tract which  th«!y  have  issued,  and  which  the  passenger  has 
accepted.      Fraud  is  not  suggestc^d,  and  this  is  part  of  the 
{)rinted  terms  which,  l)V  the  ordinary  use  of  his  eyesight, 
the  |)lainliff  might   iiave  seen — not  concealed  from  him  at 
all,  nor  is  th(!re  anything  to  >1h)W  that  it  was  not  in  the  eon- 
teiuplation  of   the   parties   when   the  contract    was  entered 
i^  tf,      I   am  of  opini<»n,  thci'cfore.  ac<'epting  fioiKf  fide  the 
»i".' eel  ion  of  th,'   Ilou- •  of    Lords  iu    Ifi'itdi'i-M-ni   r,    Stfi'di- 
si>,     where  the  facts  arc  similar,  that  this  ease,  is  not  within 
the   authority  of   that    «lecision.      I    decide    it    accordingly, 
without  casting  the  shadow  of  a  doul)t  on  the  authority  of 
that  ease.     What   we  are  virtually  asked  to  do  is  to  deciih; 
in  favor  of  the  plaintiff  because  on  the  lirst  page  of    the 
ticket-book  there  is  not  printed  in  large  letters,  "  Read  the 
lU'xt  page."'     That    leally  is  what   the  argument  on  liehalf 
of  the  plaintiff  amounts  to.      Judgment  must   be  entered 
for  the  defendants. 
LiNDI-KV,  .1.  : 

1  am  of  the  same  opinion.  The  (pieslion  is,  what  con- 
tract was  entered  into?  'i'he  plaintiff  paid  his  money  for  a 
journey  to  Paris  and  l)ack,  and   received  a  l)ook  of  tickets. 


I 


1^ 


460 


THK  CONTKACTS  OF  CARRIERS. 


[CII.  XIII. 


Avhich  was  tlic  iigvooineiit  botwcon  the  parties,  but  the  find- 
ing of  the  jury  does  not  show  what  the  eontraet  was.  The 
jury  found  that  tlie  phiintiff  had  not  suttieient  notiee  of 
this  eondition.  Tliat  leaves  open  the  (juestion  what  was  the 
eontraet.  Can  the  plaintiff  make  out  a  eontraet  without 
that  eondition?  I  think  not.  If  the  jury  had  found  that 
the  eontraet  was  what  was  printed  on  the  eoyer,  or  on  some 
one  page  of  the  hook  of  coupons,  that  would,  I  think,  have 
I)een  so  manifestly  against  the  weight  of  evidence  that  the 
verdict  could  not  have  stood.  The  only  answer  to  the  (|ues- 
tion  what  is  the  conti'act,  is:  "Here,  in  this  little  hook,  is 
the  contract.''  We  ai"e  pressed  to  apply  lI>'n(h'vnoii  v. 
•Steveusfni  to  this  case,  hut  the  facts  are  not  the  same. 
The  House  of  Lords  split  the  ticket  in  two  as  it  were,  hy 
holding  that  one  side  contained  the  contract  entered  into  by 
the  parties,  and  that  the  condition  printed  on  the  reverse 
side,  but  un"eferred  to  on  the  contract  side,  was  no  pai't  of 
the  contract.  The  ticket  in  this  case  is  of  a  different  kind, 
and  we  can  not  deal  with  il  as  the  ticket  in  Jhudi'vsou  r. 
Slevi'iisiiit,  because  we  can  not  say  that  the  tirst  page  of 
the  ])ook  contains  the  whole  contract,  and  reject  the  remain- 
ing pages.  The  physical  form  of  tiie  book  does  not  admit 
of  this  trealnicnt.  '{"he  defendants  ai'c  entitled  to  our  judg- 
ment. 

.ludguicnl   for  the  defendants. 

N'OTK. — Sec  </)(^(',  Cap.  IV.  §  lOi'i.  Tlir  dl-,i;ii'iicin  iii;i'l<- Ifiwocn  tlii-> 
rase  aiiil  ilic  aiitliority  citcil  in  the  jii(li;iiiriii  i-  \oiv  till'',  aiid  i|iiil('  <1<'- 
M'i\c>  ilic  luilowiiiii' crilifi^in  w  liirji  ilic  ca-i' ici-civcd  in  a  laic  iiiimbcr 
ol'  till'  /,"/'•  ./i)iir,i<il :  ••  A  jiidu'c  ot'  a  coiirl  I'f  lir^t  iiistanci'.  wlio  diTJari  s 
ids  ' '/n, /</«'(/<■  aci'c'piaiicr  ■  nf  a  dccisinii  ni  iln-  liiulic^l  triiiiinal.  ai'd  jjro- 
irsts  tlial  lu' d(i('.i  iioi  iiiiciid  to  c'a-^t  •  ilii' >liado\\  nf  a  donht  "  11)1(111  its 
a'llli.iriiy.  ici-iii'iaiiy  proct  i'd<  to  do  witliii  iliat  w  Idcii  I.iird.Fiisiicf  Itiaiii- 
\v<'ll  univ  dfclaicd  lo  )>.■  iii'scr  very  dillicidi  10  a  li';^al  iidiid  —  lo  di-- 
tiiii;iiisli  it.  All  illiistratlnii  of  tlii-:  iiiu'iiuinciinii  may  li>'  I'niiMd  in  ||ii> 
jiidjiiiKMii  (if  l.iinl  ( 'ulcridjr'' and  Mr.  .Instirc  i,inili<'y  in  Diirlvi'  v.  Suiilli- 
ea-lfiii  IJailw  ay  ( 'ninpany.  the  hiiidin;.;aiitiiniiiy  lo  wliirli  tjic  dis!in,u;iii>l.- 
iiiu;  iiidi-cssliait  to  lioajiplicil.  In'inii'  tlu'  well-Know  n  di'ci.~ioii  of  ilic  JI(ni-.c 

of  Lord-  ill  llciidcrson  v.  SIcmmi-oii  willi  rc;i;ard  li ndiiioiis  indoi>cd 

oil  raihvay  ticluM-.  In  IJiiri^i'  v.  Soiitlicasifrn  Hallway  ('oinpany  Ilic 
plaiiitilf  had   lalvcn  a  rcliiin  (icKct   from  ( 'liariii;;  Cio^-i  Stalioii  to  I'ai  is 


^■^- 


(■II.  XIII. J 


rxuKrouTEi)  casks. 


4«1 


Tlu 


and  back,  part  of  whifli  journey  Inul.  of  conisf.  to  U-  ricrfonneil  o\n  a 
Kirni'h  line  of  railway.     Must  people  know  that  these  tickets  aro  made 

ui)  in  the  form  of  little  1 ks.  einuaininjj:.  besides  a  vai'iety  of  printed 

matter,  six  conpons.  which  the  i)a-sen;:er  is  re.inired  to  detach  and  de- 
liver ni>  at  llie  various  sta-i'es  of  his  compo.-ite  journey.     On  the  outside 
of  the  i)lainliffs  ticket-hook  was  primed  the  name  of  the  defendant  com- 
pany, the  words  •  London  to  I'aris  and  hack."  and  a  notice  as  to  the  time 
for  which  the  ticket  would  he  available.     Inside,  on  the  lirst  pa<>-e.  at  the 
end  of  a  somewhat  len^iMliy  jiarajiraph  relatin^i;  lo  Inggajje,  was  to  be 
found  a  condition  declarin<>- tliat  the  company  would  not  be  liable  for 
any  mischance  or  ne;i;liM-ence.  «'xcei)l  on  their  own  line  of  railway.    With 
this  ticket  the  lii>ht-hearted  excursionis;  —  relyiu!;-.  as  maybe  assnmiMl 
for  tlie  purposes  of  argument /»  l.unn,.  ou  the  decision  in  Henderson  v. 
Stevenson  — proceeded  on  his  journey:  and  Ihouj^h  it  might  liave  l)ecn 
supposed  tliatthe  tedium  oi  a  -ec(uid-class  railway  carriage  would  have 
induced  him  to  makr  tlie  most  of  h].-  resunrces.  it  appeared  that  the  little 
))ook.  with  wldcli  the  foicthouinht  of   the  company  had  jn-ovided  him 
remained  unread  in  his  waistcoat  pockei.     It  was  not  to  be  expected  lliat 
lie  would  read  it  in  Paris;  and.  on  his  way  back,  two  or  three  French 
trains  ran  into  each  other  at  a  station  named  \oyelles.  and  his  attention 
was  caded  to  its  cmitems.  as  he  swort;.  for    he  first  lime.     liavin"',  o( 
course,  no  contract  witli  the  French  railway  company,  he  sued  the  Sonth- 
(■astern  Company  for  damafres  for  the  personal  injuries  tlms  sustained; 
and  was  met  with  the  condition  relieving  them  from  liability,  which  has 
l)een  referred  to.     Now.  in  Ilenderscm  v.  Stevenson,  the  plaintiff  had, 
received  a  ticket,  in  the  ordinary  cardl)oard  form,  from  a  steam-packet 
comiiany.  on  the  back  of  which  was  a  notice  that  the  comi)any  were  not 
to  be  liable  for  loss(>s  of  any  kind  or  from  any  cause.     Tlie  plaintiff  lost 
his  luggage  through  the  negligence  of  the  company's  servants;  and  the 
House  of  Ijords  held  that,  inasmuch  as  the  ticket  bore  on  its  face  only 
the  naine  of  the  company  and  the  words  •  Dublin  to  Whiteliaven,'  with, 
nothing  to  direct  tlie  plaintiffs  attention  to  what  was  written  on  the  back,, 
the  condition  on  whicli  the  defendants  relied  formed  no  part  of  the  con- 
tract.    In  Htirke  v.  Southeastern  Railway  Company,  the  jury  found,  irt 
answer  to  the  Lord  Chief  .histice"s  (juestion.  that  the  defcndiint  oompaiiy 
had  not  done  all  that  they  were  reasonably  bound  to  do  togive  the  plaint- 
iff notice  of  the  ('(uidition  on  which  they  relied.     It  will  be  seen,  the.e- 
fore.  that  tlie  task  undertaken  by  the  Common  Pleas  Division  in  the  lat- 
ter case  —  of  tleferriiig  to  and  yet   distinguishing  the  decision   of  the 
House  of  Lords  in  IIenilers(ui  v.  Sleveiison  —  was  one  of  considerable 
delicacy.     The  dilliculty  was  overcome,  as  we  understand  the  decision, 
in  the  following  way.     In  Henderson  v.  Stevenson,  there  wis  what  jiur- 
ported  to  be  a  complete  contract  ii])on  the  face  of  the  ticket.     In  th  >  case 
under  discussion  the  whole  of  the  tick<'t-))ook.  .ind  not  merely  its  outside 
covei".  formed  the  contract  lictweeii  the  parties:    a  c<mclusion  of  fact 
wliicli  was  shown.  Inlfr  nUn.  by  the  fact  that  tin-  coupons  for  the  variou'^i 
stages  of  the  jilaiiitiffs  joiu'iicy  were  bound  ni)  in  the  little  book  with 
the  conditions  by  wliicli  it  was  desired  to  bind  him.    Though  it  may  ap- 
30 


4B2 


THK  CONTRACTS  OF  CAUUIKIJS. 


[CH.   XUI. 


pear  pnisiiinptiou  to  iUt('iiii)t  to  I'lilicisc  tlii'  jiKlj^iiiciil  (if  llic  oiiiinciil 
judges  who  sal.  wo  liiid  a  ilillirulty  in  following  the  process  of  reasoning 
by  which  it  was  arrived  at.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the  annomieeinent 
'A.  to  B.,'  with  the  name  of  tiie  issning  c(>nip;\ny.  slioiild  —  on  the  ltael< 
of  a  cardboard  ticket  —  pnrport  lo  l)e  a  complete  conlract.  and  put  the 
passenger  upon  no  further  impiiry.  wliilst  snlistanlially  llie  same  in'inted 
matter  uiion  tlie  outside  of  a  pai)er  Ixtoli  is  to  lie  taken  as  rt'fcrring  him 
do  all  that  isinside  it.  ridesssnch  a  paper  l)ool<  is  signed  liy  the  passen- 
ger accepting  it.  it  is.  of  course,  nolliing  more  than  evidence  of  the  oral 
contract  which  he  must  be  taken  as  having  made  wilii  the  issning  clerk: 
and  tin;  argmnent  drawn  from  the  situation  of  the  couiions  inside  the 
kinding  appears  to  u.s  to  have  but  little  weight.  If  the  tieket  had  been 
in  tiie  form  of  a  pocket-book  or  pouch,  with  ivory  counli'rs  instead  of 
coupons — a  perfe(?tly  conccivalth"  hypothesis — could  it  have  been  con- 
lended  that  the  passenger  was  iionnd  liy  any  piinled  matter  which  the 
company  chose  to  put  upon  tin'  lining^  There  is  ;i  pluin  dis.inction  be- 
tween a  written  C(Mitract  and  a  vnueher  given  by  one  of  twn  ]iarlies  to 
ttie  other  as  a  means  (,f  satisfying  ihe  servants  ot  the  tir-l  that  he  ha- 
entered  into  .some  contract.  If  the  vnucber  is  signed.  oi- otherwise  ex- 
pressly assentcnl  to  by  the  jierson  aeeeplinv;  it.  it  in  effeel  liecomes  the 
contract,  but  not  otherwise;  and  we  enn'i"!  help  ibinking  that  the  next 
time  a  (piestion  of  this  nature  ariiies  at  AV.sf"  I'l-iii.".  the  presiding  judge,  if 
be  desires  not  to  oast-ashadow  of  u  doubt"  upon  I'iiber  Henderson  v. 
Stevenson  or  Burke  v.  .Southeastern  itailway  Company,  will  have  a  deli- 
cate task  to  perform." 


I'U 


•'«wr''sw^P?«-v«.'-"«?s*T!ri?55»'^ 


[Cll.  XIII. 

the  eininciil 
nf  I'l'iisouillfi' 

IIIOIIIK'CIUCIlt 

-on  the  l)at'k 
and  put  the 
■Miiio  iiriiited 
cftTiiiif;  him 
\  llic  psisseii- 
('  of  the  oral 
;siiiii<^  ck'rk; 
IS  inside  liic 
kct  liiid  been 
■s  instt'iid  ol 
vt'  Iji'cn  con- 
■r  wiiicli  the 
s, 'Miction  1)1'- 
(I  pai'lifs  In 
iliat  ho  ha> 
hcrwise  cx- 
hi't'onics  tin' 
liat  tho  next 
iny-  judge,  if 
IciidiM'son  V. 
have  a  deli- 


INDEX. 


A. 

AKAXDOXMKNT  OF  COXTKACT. 

lialiilily  of  cariicr  for.  pp.  1'.M)-1!)l>. 

••AC('1I)I:N  TAK  DELAYS.'- 

("ouslruriion  of  this  |)lnasi'  in  l)ill.s  of  lading,  p.  "JK!. 

A(  riox. 

will  lie  a!j;;nu>t  carrier  for  refiisuig  to  carry  except  under  special 

agreeni-'nl.  \).  270. 
may  he  hi'ouu'ht  hy  person  to  whom  receipt  is  given,  p.  381. 

A<T  HV  (;()I). 

detinilion  of.  pp.  ">.  (!.  7. 

earlier  excused  for  loss  arising  from,  p.  5. 

what  is  williin  the  term.  p.  ", 

eailh(nuil<es.  p.  7. 

free/.iiii;-  of  navigable  waters,  p.  7. 

light  uing.  ]).  7. 

snow  storms,  p.  7. 

tempests,  p.  7. 
what  is  not  within  the  term.  pp.  0.  10. 

Iiursting  of  boiler.  |).  !). 

!)Mrstiiig  of  eheiiiicals,  p.  10. 

collisions,  p.  10. 

Iire>  not  caused  by  lightning,  p.  0. 

(iitstructions  in  navigation,  p.  10. 

shifting  of  Imoy  .  p.  10. 
discordant  decisions,  p.  9. 
must  be  exclusive  to  excuse  carrier,  p.  10. 
negligence  and  act  of  God  concurring,  p.  11. 
loss  by,  after  delay,  p.  12. 
loss  by,  after  deviation,  pp.  12.  Vi. 
<liity  of  carrier  to  preserve  goods  damaged  by.  p.  14. 


464 


INDKX. 


!.  t 


ADVEJITISE.MEX'J'S.     .sv<  \ i:\v.si-Ai-Kits;   IM, ACAUhs. 

ACENCY, 

iiolioo  j^ivni  liy  oarrier  may  he  wa'ncil  liy  nj!;('ii(.  p.  07. 

printed  rates  of  cai'i'ier  waived  l>y  staletiieiit  of  ajieiit  tluit  ^oods 

will  be  sent  for  less,  j).  H?. 
notice  that  goods  will  not  he  sent  after  certain  hour  waived  by 

rei'eii)t  of  them  after  that  li<>iir,  p.  It7. 
notice  that  vainc  nuist  hi'  spet  illed  in  icccijit  waived  by  uct'cpt- 
anee  of  goods  by  agent  wit'i  knowledge  of  their  valiu-,  p.  !»7. 
notice  to  princii)al  is  notice  to  all  his  ngenls.  p.  ;i;t(). 
power  of  agent  of  ownei'  to  conti-acl  wiili  carrier.  ]ip.  ;{27-;?;J2. 

authority  given  to  sliip  cariics  aiilhoriiy  to  nial\e  contract,  p. 

327. 
whi)  is  an  *•  agent '"  for  this  purpose,  pp.  ;{2S-;i;{0. 
consignor  is  agent  of  con>ignee.  p.  ;t2S. 
vendor  is  agent  of  vendee,  p.  '.\2S. 
cartrnan  or  ])oi-ter  not  witliin  the  rnle.  p.  ;{2!). 
carrier  need  not  examine  aiilhnrily  of  agent.  :t;JO. 
carrier's  knowledge  of  ageiil">  want  of  autliorily.  j).  '.V.U. 
lial)ility  of  agent  to  princii)al.  p.  ;i;;i. 
power  of  agent  of  carrier  to  make  contracts,  pp.  ;i;{2-;Ul. 

agent  of  carrit-r  presumed  to  have  authority  to  make  contracts, 

|)p.  ;i:{2-:{;i:?. 

when  carrier  boinul  by  acts  of  agents,  j).  ;i;i4. 
when  carrier  not  bound  by  acts  of  agents,  pp.  3;?4-;j:i(!. 
express,  forwarding  and  dispatch  companies  liable  for  dcfatilts  of 
agencies  which  they  employ,  pp.  ;J;JiJ-;541. 

"AGKEES," 

construction  of  this  word  in  bills  of  lading,  p.  217. 
ALABAMA, 

carrier  may  limit  his  common  law  liability  by  contract,  p.  153. 

bill  not  for  negligence,  p.  33. 

nor  by  notice,  p.  34. 
rule  as  to  burden  of  proof  as  lo  negligence,  pp.  377-:57!). 

"  AT.L  HAIL,"" 

construction  of  this  phrase  in  bills  of  lailing.  p.  217. 

ARKANSAS, 

power  of  carrier  to  limit  liis  liability  not  decided,  p.  31. 
exeei)t  as  to  losses  on  his  own  line.  p.  3-1. 

"ARTICLE."" 

construction  of  this  iilnasc  in  bills  of  lading,  pp.  217,  218. 
ASSENT. 

to  conditions  in  bills  of  hiding  or  express  recciptshow  evidenced,  pp. 
107-112. 


t  tliiit  ;;(Knls 

•  waived  by 

by  iU'ccpt- 
iiio,  i>.  !)". 

coiitnict.  p. 


i;}i. 


!  iH)ntriic'ts» 


clffaults  of 


^ 


W.]. 


leneed.  pj). 


INDEX. 


B. 


465 


"  BAGGAGE." 

couHtnictioii  of  this  plinise  In  notices,  p.  •J1!», 

BAGGAGE  ClIECIvS. 

notices  in.  do  not  bind  passenger  from  ueeeptiinec  without  dissent, 
PI).  \l^-\-H'>. 

BAUGE  OWNEltS. 

arc  oonimon  carriers,  p.  ',\, 

BILLS  OF  LADING, 

conditions  in.  bind  carrier  by  acceptance  without  dissent,  pp.  103-112. 

alitcr  in  Illinois,  j).  111. 

cases  showing  evidence  of  assent,  pp.  107-112. 
conditions  altaclicd  to.  do  not  bind  owner  by  accept;'.'\ce,  pp.  113-llG. 
dcllnitiou  of  bill  of  lading,  p.  I'M. 
bill  of  lading  t)otli  a  receipt  and  a  contract,  p.  132. 
receipt  jnirt  may  be  varied  by  parol,  p.  132. 
but  contract  i)art  can  not  be  contradicted,  pp.  132. 133. 

ccdlaterul  agreement  nniy  be  shown,  p.  130. 

so  also  may  snpi)lementary  contract,  pp.  130, 137. 

fraud  may  be  shown,  pp.  137-140. 

duress  nniy  be  siiown,  pp.  1 1)7-140. 

mistake  may  be  shown,  pp.  i37-140. 
antecedent  negotiations  are  merged  in  bill  of  lading,  p.  133. 
sul)se(iuent  delivery  of  bill  of  lading  does  not  alter  contract,  p.  134. 
nor  delivery  of  bill  of  lading  after  occurrence  of  loss,  pp.  135, 13G. 
terms  in  insurance  policies  and  bills  of  lading  construed  differently, 

pp.  211 -21  (i. 
examples  of  modern  bills  oi'  lading,  pp.  221-228. 

•'  BIIE.VKAGE."     See  '•  Lkakagk  and  Bue.vkaoe." 

BUKDEN  OF  I'llOOF, 
on  carrier.  i)p.  3()'J-372. 

to  sliow  necessity  for  deviation,  p.  13. 

to  sliow  tiiat  loss  arose  from  cause  for  which  he  was  not  respon- 

slble,  pp.  3(;!».  370. 
to  prove  contract  limiting  liability,  371. 
to  sliow   that  receipt  containing  exemptions  was  accepted  in 

good  faith,  pp.  371-372. 
to  show  that  loss  is  witliin  exceptions  in  contract,  pp.  372-401. 
to"  sliow  negligence  where  loss  is  within  an  accepted  peril,  pp. 
374-377. 
the  rule  in  Alabama,  pp.  377-37'.t. 
to  show  compliance  with  condition  wlien  exemption  is  condi- 
tional, p.  3S0. 
on  shipper,  pp.  372-381. 

"  to  sliow  negligence  when  loss  falls  witliin  an  excepted  peril,  pp. 
372,  373,  410. 


%\ 


\w^ 


466 


INDEX. 


BUKDEN  OF  PROOF-Contimiod. 

to  sliow  that  loss  was  from  cause  for  w liiili  i  unicr  was  to  hi- 
sjiechiUy  liiible,  p.  IWO. 

c. 

CALIFORNIA. 

tt'lc^'iaitli  coinpauics  arc  coniinon  carriers,  ji.  :t. 
power  of  carrier  to  limit  liis  liatiiliiy  not  docidcil.  pp.  ;il.  ;t."). 
CANADA. 

carrier  may  limit  liis  lial)iiity  l»y  contract,  p.  :n. 
evfn  for  ^jross  nej,'il;roncc  ami  fraiiil,  p.  M. 
CANAL  IJOATMKX, 

are  common  carriers,  p.  ;{. 
CARHIKKS  OF  ANIMALS. 

not  common  carriers  in  En^ri;,|,(l  and  Alichij^an.  p.  17. 

alilir  in  most  of  tlie  States,  p.  17. 
"just  and  rcasonahic '"  conditions  in  contracts  for  carria;-e  nf  li\,. 

stocii  under  the  Kii<,'lish  statute.  i)p.  1 10-1 1 1, 
earlier  may  jirescrilic  rcfjuialions  in  the  cairiaije  of  live  >tock.  pi, 

MS- !.-,((. 
iicj^liijence  in  llie  carria^'c  of  live  stock,  p.  I7<;-17S. 

CARRIERS  OF  PASSFNOKKS.     ,SV.'  also  Fm-i;  I'ass:  St.m  k  Pass. 
not  ciimmon  carriers,  p.  lO. 

must  provide  safe  vehicles  and  means  of  tiansportalion.  p.  Id. 
notice  v:iven  hy  carrier  as  to  goods  applies  as  well  to  ha,;,';^!!^'''  of 

pa.ssenjiers  as  to  ijoods  otherwise  carried,  pp.  !)S.  !)!i. 
passenjfci-  l»y  hoat  not  bound  liy  posted  ref,nilations.  pp.  102.  l();f. 
notice  at  one  door  of  ferry  not  bindinji;  on  one  enleiini;  at  another 
door.  p.  !()•_•. 

passenj^er  payinj,'  fare  on  train  not  hound  hv  notice  posted  at  depot 

p.  102. 
that  liasseii^r,.,-  iiiis  seen  notice  in  car.  as  to  smoking,  does  not  raise 
presumption  that  lie  has  .seen  notice  as  to  baggage,  tliougli  l)olh 
in  same  |)lacard,  p.  102. 
conditions  in  railroad  and  steamboat   tickets  or  l)agg!ige  checks  do 

not  bind  passenger  by  at.'ceptance  wiiliout  dissent,  pp.  1I(;-12(;. 
carriers  of  i.assengeis  can  not  linut  liability  for  negligence,  p.  27;?. 

aliler  in  Englaml.  p.  27;{. 
duly  of  carrier  to  i)assenger  riding  free.  pp.  27;i.  27."). 
can  not  limit  Ids  liability  for  his  negligence,  p.  27."j. 

alitrr  in  England  and  Ireland,  p.  27."). 
wluit  is  a  gratinlous  passenger,  pp.  27.")-27S. 
happeiung  of  accident  priina  fade  evidence  of  negligence.  |tp.  :i(i',). 
:{70. 

CHARACTER  OF  (JOODS.     See  Vai.ii:. 
"  C.  O.  D.  • 

construction  of  tlicse  letters  in  bills  of  lading,  iip.  21!).  220. 


INDIA. 


4(57 


COLLISION. 

ii  •«  ilaii;;!'!'  nf  iiiivi;;iiti<iii,"  1.V2. 

rriiii'Wiii  of  iliis  niliiijr.  |iit.2;t2--j;(l. 

COLOUADO. 

currier  iiuiy  limit  lii-  liiiliillty  liv  coiiinict.  p.  M'l, 
(•XC('|il  fur  iic;;iif;cil(C.  p.  H'l. 

COMM»)N  CAHIUIOKS.     .SVc  nUn  (Auituits  ok  Animals:  Cauwikus 

OK  r.\SSKMii;i!S. 

iK'tliiiiii'ii  of.  p.  2. 
who  iuc.  pp.  2- 1. 

Imriii'  i>\\  utM'>.  p.  Ii. 
iMiiiil  Ixiiiliiicn.  p.  ;t. 

(•xjircss  ( ipimii'-.  pp.  2.  I'iil. 

fcrrynii'ii.  p.  ;i. 
iiorsc  riiilroml-.  li.  '-. 
iioyimii.  p.  ;i. 
li^litiiifii.  p.  ;!. 
onuiilms  jiiii's.  p.  1. 
niilroud  ciiiiiiniiiit's.  p.  2. 
(ihlpowniTs,  p.  KM. 
Stii;;"'  cnilclli'-.  p.  -. 
stt'iiinboiils.  p.  ;(. 
ti'iimslcrs.  p.  I!. 
t()\v-lio:ils.  p.  ;{. 
Wiin'oiicrs.  I'l. 
who  arc  not.  pp.  I'-l. 

slcc))iii,<i  cur  <'(iiiipiiiiics.  p.  I. 
tcU'fi'rapli  companies,  p.  It. 

criticism  "ii  tiiesc  riiliiijis.  p.  4. 
tow-lMials.  p.  I!. 
liahililv  as  iiisiucrs.  p.  1. 

distinction  hel  ween  litis  anil  oilier  forms  of  insm'aiice.  p.  l. 

carri.'rcan  not  c.ll  on  insurance  comimny  for  contribution, 

p.  l.")l. 
,.;,nier  may  contract  for  henelil  of  insurance  cffectcil  by 

owner  on  ;;doils.  pp.  l."il.  '•^^'''>- 

tiiat  owner  lias  collected  indemnity  from  insi.rance  compiuiy 
docs  not  release  carrier  from  liability,  pp.  l.')l,  1.V2. 

„.nnsin  insurance  policies  and  bills  of  ladin-  oonstnied  dif- 
ferent Iv.  pl).  •.ill--2H5-'^'''-  .     . 

insurer  after  payment  of  loss  ciititlcd  to  recovery  over  a-a.nst 

lllin!.irstiuue"does  not  prevent   carrier  from  contracti.ig 
with  sliii.pcr  for  beneli;  of  iiiMirance,  !>.  liSU. 
exceptions  to  carrier's  liability  as  insurer,  p.  4. 
:ict  of  (iod.  p.  ."). 

what  witliin  the  term.  ii.  7. 


40H 


INDKX. 


111^4 


Common  caimmku^   cmhIi ti. 

NVllUt    Mill    Wiillill   till-  ICIill.  |l|>.   '.).    III. 

miiil  111-  llic  cxrliivivf  fiiiisc.  pp.  Id,  11. 

in';jli;;('iit'(' ('(mciiniii;;  with.  p.  II. 

Ins.-  I>y.  llfliT  (lclu\  .  p.  IJ. 

loriH  liy,  afli'i'  (lc\  liitioii,  pp.  I'J.  i:t. 

(Inly  I'f  ciinii'i'  1(1  pirst'i'vc  j;o(nl>*  ihunii^cil  liy. 
th«!  piililit'  t'liciiiy,  p.  I  I. 

who  iU'c  witliiii  tills  liM'iii.  pp.  II,  1.'). 

will)  iiri-  111)1  witliiii  this  ici'in.  p.  I.'), 
inhci-fiit  ih'fccis  ill  ;c(>o(ls  canH-d.  p.  I.'). 

illustration  of  (Ills  fxn-piloii,  p.  15. 
^('l/iin'  of  ;fiMi(ls  under  prnccss.  p.  IS. 

(Ii-rliar;i:'"'  f.niicr  \\licii.  pp.  l.s,  11). 

(lisconlant  tlfflslon-^.  p.  I!), 
nofjlccl  or  oiiijsslini  of  owner,  pp.  1!).  "20.  ii, 
fiaiiil  of  owiHT.  pp.  20.  ■>]. 

foiii'Ciilincni  of  valiii'  or  ((iiality  of  ^footls.  p|).  : 
owinT  MnilcrlaKiiii,'  jiart  of  canicr's  dnlii's,  pp.  22, 
power  of  caniiM's  to  liniii  tlicir  coinnion  law  lial)iliiy.  pp. 
power  foniH'ily.  not  ailniilled,  \).  2.'i. 
rififor  of  the  aiirieiit  rule  relaxed,  j).  2."). 
regrets  at  the  aliaiidoiiinent  of  the  aneieiit  rule,  p.  27. 
th(!  Kiifjlish  staliites.  pp.  2S,  2!),  M). 
tliu  rule  in  .Viiieriea.  pp.  HI- 127. 

ill  the  Federal  ("oiirts.  pp.  ;{2,  ;{S;{. 

in  Alahania.  p.  ',V.\. 

in  Arkansas,  ji.  ;\\. 

ill  California,  pp.  Iti.  It.'i. 

in  Colorado.  Ud. 

in  Coiineelieut,  p.  Ilti. 

in  Delaware,  p.  ;{(!. 

in  Florida,  p.  :tii. 

in  (Jeor^iia,  pp.  ;it'i 

in  Illinois,  p.  :{S,  iCi. 

ill  Indiana,  p.  :t!). 

ill  Iowa.  p.  )i). 

in  Kansas,  p.    (I. 

ill  Keniueky.  |).  II. 

in  liOiiisiana.  p|).  II.  12. 

in  Maine,  p.  12. 

in  Marylaiiil.  p.  12.  IIJ. 

in  Mas~aehusetls.  p.  1:1. 

in  Mi<-hi<;'an.  ]>.  1 1. 

in  Minnesota,  p.  14. 

in  .Mississippi,  p.  l."». 

in  Missouri,  pp.  4.").  Hi. 

in  \(0>i:iska,  p.  47. 


P.M. 


2(1.  21. 
,  2:«. 
2I-.-.7. 


:i.s. 


■^^1^":^ 


INDKX. 


•1t)!» 


p.  II. 


!(>.  -21. 

ii-:i7. 


COMMON  CAUIMKKS-CuiitliiiK'.l. 
ill  N'fViula,  p.  17. 
ill  \f\v  llaiiili-^iiiri'.  p.  17, 
ill  Now  Jcrsi-y.  p.  is. 
ill  Xt'w  Yolk.  jip.   IS.  111. 
ill  Ndi'IIi  Ciiniiiiia.  pp.  50,  'il. 
in  Oliin.  j.p.  .-.l.  .V2. 
ill  ()r(';j;cin.  p.  .'•J. 
ill  Pciiii-ylviinla.  pp.  .V.'. .");(. 
ill  Kliodc  Isiaiui,  |).  ■')!. 
ill  Soiitii  ('ari)iiiiu.  p.  •')!. 
ill  'rciiiii'sscc.  p.  .")l. 
ill  Texas,  p.  .">.">. 
in  Vcriiiniil,  p.  .">.'). 
in  Viij^iiiia.  p.  .">."). 
ill  West  Virj;inia.  p.  .">•">. 
ill  Wis('(ni»iii.  p.  .")(;. 
policy  of  iillow  iii;^  a  HiiiIiimI  lialiility.  p.  ■")>!. 
ri'usoiis  aj^aiiist  liic  (loctiim'.  pp.  .V.i.  (Id. 
views  of  till-  I'Diirts  ;»ro  ami  ('««,  pp.  (iO-SO. 
notices  by  euirieis  wiieii  alloweil,  pp.  SI.  Hi. 
lis  to  value  ami  cliaracler  of  jjooils,  p.  S2. 
eiiriy  peiniitted  in  Kii^riaiul,  \)\u  S2-.S7. 
ciitieisin  on  tiie  piactiee.  i)p.  SO.  S7. 
valid  ill  .Viiieiiea.  pp.  S7.  SS.  80. 
(piestionalile  in  Illinois,  p.  SO. 
unreiisonalile  eliaiifjes  not  allowed,  p.  00. 
niiist  not  lie  aniliifjiioiis  or  eoiillii'tiiiji.  pp.  01,  0-J. 
when  severable  from  notices  as  to  liabilily,  p.  01. 
witlionl  iioiiee  no  duly  to  state  value,  p.  0;{. 
,ior  when-  earlier  lias  otlier  information,  pp.  iCJ.  0"). 
notici'  iini  complied  willi  no  recovery  at  all,  pp.  0').  '•'•;■ 

except  ions  to  this  rule.  p.  00. 
notice  iiniy  lie  waived  by  carrier,  pp.  00.  07. 

as  by  special  eoiitracl  different  from  teriiis  of  notice,. 

p.  01!. 
ii>,'lit  to  set  up  owner's  failure  to  comply  with  terms  of 
"lotice  not  preeliided  by  liaviiij?  paid  former  loss,  pp. 
00.  07. 
waiver  may  be  by  ajient.  p.  07. 
lirinted  rates  of  carrier  waived  by  stateineiit  of  agent 

that  ^'oods  will  be  sent  for  less.  p.  ',•7. 
notice  that  <;(>oils  will  not  be  received  after  certain  time 

waived  by  receipt  of  them  after  tliat  time,  p.  07. 
notice  that  value  must  be  specitied  in  receipt  waived  by 
aet'ci.iaiu'e  of  goods  by  agent  with  knowledge  of  their 
value.  !>.  07. 
extent  of  notice,  pi).  08.  00. 


1:; 


''i 


¥ 


470 


IXUEX. 


COMMON  CARHIKHS— Coin imu'd. 

notice  foiu'iMiiiiij:'  ;;;i)()(ls  from  A  to  15  ai)|;lies  to  goods  i-ar- 

rit'tl  from  H  to  A.  p.  !»S. 
notice  applies  t6  property  of  passengers  as  well  as  to  goods 

earried.  p.  !»S.  li!». 
iioliees   suspended  at  termini  liavo  no  effeet  at  intermed- 
iate plaees.  p.  !)S. 
stii)idation  in  sioek  pass  eovers  not  only  transit,  but  risks 
ineident  lo  reaeliing  and  departing  from  depot.  {>.  It!), 
modes  of  giving  notiee,  p.  !)!). 
advertisements,  p.  '.ill. 

notices  printed  in  newspapers  not  favored,  pp.  (Ml.  101. 
no  presumption  that  person  taking  newspaper  reads  all 
its  contents,  p.  lOO. 
placards,  pp.  li)l-l(i:t. 

noticts  liy  placard  not  favored,  p.  101. 

pas.-enger  hy  l)nat  not  iioinid  liy  posted  regulations,  pp., 

102.   1(11!. 
notice  at  one  door  of  ferry  not  liinding  on  one  eniering 

at  another  door.  p.  10:2. 
passenger   paying  fare  on  tiaiii  not   itound    by   notice 

posted  at  depot,  p.  102. 
that  passenger  has  seen  notice  in  car  as  lo  smoking,  etc.. 
does  Mot  raisr  pre.-umpiion  that  he  has  seen  notice  as 
lo  baggage,  though  i)olh  in  the  same  placard,  j).  102. 
receipts,  pp.  |(»;>-l ()."). 

notices   in  icceipts  do   not  affect    liai)ility   of    larriei, 
when.  pp.  l(i:!-ll(i. 
railroad  and  sicamboat  tickets,  pp.  lli;-12;{. 

notices  iu  do  nol  bind  passenger  when,  pp.  llti-12;f. 
baggage  .-heeks.  |>p.  12:;-12i:. 

notices  in  do  not  liind  piis^^enger  when,  pp.  12;i-12i!. 
necessity  of  priming  notices  in  large  type.  jip.  120.  127. 
notices  prescribing  regulations,  pp.  Ul-1.")0. 
valid  if  reasonable,  pp.  1  ll-i  17. 
void  if  unreasiiuable.  jip.  1  I7-1")(I. 
earlier    may   pre-cribe  time   within    wliich  claims  must   be 

made,  pp.  1  H-1  IS. 
carrier    may   lue.-ciibe  regidations    iu    the  transpoit  of  live 

stock,  pp.  !  |,s-i:i(i. 
means  of  carrying  out  couditions  nm^t  be  provided  by  car- 
rier, p.  I.")l. 
limiting  liability  by  ctrntrail.  p.  Itl.'>. 
may  be  by  parol,  p.  l;!l. 
notices  only  propo-^als  for  contracts.  \\.  Id.'i. 
uml  unless  assented  to  do  not  make  contraci«.  p.  100. 
how  assent  nia\  lie  evidenced,  pp.  Hl7   112. 
ussent  fnmi  accepting  papei<coniaiiiiug condition-;,  pp.  107-127. 


:>^ 


'tiv  I'liiwumiiMinyiii" 


%\ 


INDEX. 


471 


goods  ciir- 


s  to  goods 

iutennod- 

,  but  risks 
2>.  !i'J. 


'.  ()!t.  101. 
r  reads  all 


at  ions,  pp., 

e  ciili-riiig 

by  notifc 

)kiii<;',  t'tf.. 
11  iidticc  as 
lid.  p.  102. 

•t    carriei. 

(;-ij:i. 

:i-\M. 
J.  117. 


IS  must  he 
K)rl  (if  live 
L'd  bv  car- 


C-UMMOX  CAKHIKHS— Coiitiiui.d. 

..bills  of  lading.  i»p.  107-10!i. 

aeccptani'c  df  bill  of  lading  binds  owner  to    conditions 

eontaini'd  in  it.  pp.  1()7.41(). 
rule  ill  lllinitis.  i))).  111.  liS:). 

but  not  to  conditions  attacbed  to  it  and  not  part  thereof 
PI).  IKt-llil. 
bill  of  lading  hotli  a  reeeipt  and  a  contract,  pp.  V,\i. 
as  a  receipt  ii  'iiay  be  eoiilracted  by  inirol.  p.  1H2. 
t)iit  I'ontract  put  can  not  be  varied  by  parol,  pp.  VM,  VXi. 
collali'ial  agrccnient  may  lie  show  n.  p.  V.W. 
so  aNo  may  siii»plementary  contiaet.  pp.  VM.  K57. 
fraud  ma>  li^'  sliown,  pji.  IIST-IIO. 
duress  may  lie  sliowii.  ]>]>.  1I'.7-14(). 
mistake  may  lie  sliown.  (ip.  I'.u-l-lO. 
antecedent  agrcemeuis  liecome  merged  in  writing,  p.  VXi. 
sub<e(|iieiil  delivery  of  Idllof  lading  does  not  alter  contract, 

p.  KM. 
nor  delivery  of  writing  after  occurrence  of  loss.  pp.  i:?.j.  VM. 
express  receipts,  pp.  lO'.l.  110. 

accepiance  of  exiiress  receipt  binds  owner  to  conditions 
in  it   liut   iioi  to  those  attached  to  it  and  not  a  part 
tie  rcitf.  pp.  lu:i.  110.  ii;l-llii. 
rule  in  Illinois,  p.  ill. 
character  of  <'niployiiieiit  not  changed  by  contract,  pp.  V28.  V29. 
bill.   Il'.t. 
except  in  special  eases,  p.  I'.SI. 
usage  or  custom  may  eoiiirol  carrier's  liability,  p.  b>'2. 

but  it  must  be  ircneral.  iea-<uial«!e  and  uniform,  p.  bVi. 

when  carrier  (-an  not  limit  hi-^  liability  by  proving  usage,  pp. 

1.52.  \M. 

u-age  admi— ibie  to  explain  a  contract,  pp.  1">1-  !•"• 
but  no;  lo  eiuitradicl  it.  pl".  1")-1, 155. 
negligence  as  aiTeciiug  contraci>  of  carriers.  i>p.  1.")S-1S0. 
the  degree- oi   negligence.  15S.  1. V.I. 

r.'asoiis  for  the  division,  pp.  l"iii.  li'>"- 
nol  proper  in  ease  of  common  carriers,  pp.  l.V.l-HiS. 
the  Kngli^li  doctrine.  \\\>.  li'J-liW. 
the  American  docliinc  Kir.  1(!S. 
discordaiii  deci-ioiis.  ICO-KiJ. 
power  to  coniract  a-aiiiM  n.'gligcnce.  pi).  ICS-li;'..'. 
ill  Knglanil  such  power  exi-t-.  pl>.  -.'tl.  27.  h>>^.  l'">'''- 
but  not  ill  Anu'i-ica.  pp.  :>1.  :t2.  Hi!'. 

except  in   New  York.  pii.  I>*.  171-17*!. 
l;,iuire<.f  owner  to  slate  value  or  .•outents  doe.- not  excuse  neg- 
ligence (.1'  carrier.  pl>.  bH'-'Tl.  I"2T.  _^ 
nulc-  amounting  t..  conuibinory  negligence,  pp.  1<1.  l.- 


II  1 1 


).  1(17-127. 


I    \, 


472 


INDEX. 


;  ii  ■'' 


\^:l 


"! 


COMMON  CARRIEHS—Coiitiiuicil. 

negligeiK-e  in  tlici-airiage  of  live  stoolv,  pp.  17()-17S. 
evldcuoe  of  iicgligonce,  wliat  is.  i)p.  17S-18(). 
that  goods  never  icaoli  destination,  p.  178. 
aooident  unaecounted  for,  p.  178. 
want  of  suitable  vehiiles,  p.  170. 
oeeurrence  of  lire  no  proof  of  negligence,  ii.  17!). 
destnu'tion  of  goods  by  nn)b.  |).  -111;, 
deviation  as  affeeting  contracts,  p.  181-l8t). 

by  deviating  from  manner  of  eariiage.  carrier  looses  benefit  of 
exemptions,  pp.  181,  182-181. 
contracting  to  send  by  sailing  vessel  and  shipping  by  steam. 

p.  182. 
agreeing  to  carry  ••  all  rail  "  and  transporting  by  sea,  p.  182, 
contract  to  forward  l)y  particular  vessel  must  be  followed. 

p.  I8:i. 
effect  of  deviation  by  connecting  carrier.  i>p.  184-18.'). 
consent  of  shipper,  p.  18(i. 

failure  of  carrier  to  conform  to  publi*;  regnlations.  p.  180. 
delay  as  affecting  contracts,  p.  18(>-1!)2. 

effect  of  delay  on  exenii)tions  in  contract,  p.  187. 
delay  caused  by  ads  of  mob.  p.  ll!t. 
contracts  concerning  delay  consirued,  |>.  1>8. 
contract  to  deliver  in  specified  time,  p.  181). 
abandonment  of  contract:  malfeasance,  pp.  I!)()-l!r2. 
construction  of  contracts  limiting  lialiility.  pp.  Ili7-2(i!». 
exceptions  in  contract  construed  -trictly.  i)p.  li)7,  108. 

general  words  following  particular  exemjjtions  include  only 

those  of  similar  cbaractti',  p.  r.t8. 
carrier's  receipt  must  be  taken  altogetlic:.  j).  1!»8. 
construction  of  maxii.i  cj-prrn.sin  imiiis  f>!<t    cj-cliisii)  alterius, 
p.  l!t!l. 

do  express  «'xcfptions  exclude  implied  ones.  pp.  200-208. 
opinion  of  Hijrelow.  ( '.  .).,  in   (jage  v.  Tirrcll.  pp.  208- 

211. 
terms  iu  iu>uiaiu'e  policies  and  l)ills  of  lading  ci>n.strued 
differently,  pp.  211-21(1. 
interpretation  of  words  and  phrases,  pp.  21(i-2ti!). 
••accidental  delays."  p.  2l<i. 
••  act  of  God."  p.  ."). 
••agrees.''  p.  217. 
••all  rail."  p.  217. 
••article,"  pp.  217.  218. 
"baggage."  p.  218. 
'•bill  of  lading."  i..  \:i\. 
"  breakage."  pp.  2.')0,  2."i2. 
"C.  O.  l>..'  p.  21'.!.  2-20. 
"  common  carrier."  p.  2. 


r'»/>r''5ww»¥ 


INDEX. 


4Y3 


COMMOX  CAIJHIEHS— Coiiliimca. 

••  contents  iniknown,""  pp.  •iiil.  -H'lT). 

••  (liiniaiic."  ]).  22(). 

"  diingcrs  iiii'idcnt  to  the  niivifiation  of  the  river."  p.  'i21. 

••*  (liinj;i'rs  of  n!iviu;iition."  ])]).  •221-212. 

••  (liiuficrs  of  tlie  lake."  p.  221. 

'•  <.lan>i('vs  of  \\\i'  river."  p.  221. 

"  (lan.^ers  of  llie  roads."  \).  242. 

''dangers  of  the  seas,"  p.  221. 

•■  detieiency  in  iiiianlity."  p.  2i;{. 

•Mhday."  p.  12. 

••  depot."  p.  2i;5. 

•■  deviation."  i)i>.  12.  i;i. 

•'  errors."  p.  2i;{. 

••  eseapes."  p.  21'.!. 

•■extraordinary  nnirine  risk."  p.  214. 

••  feed,  water  and  take  proper  eare  of."  r.  •'44. 

••tire,"  244-24(1. 

"forward."' pp.  240.  42(j. 

'•  free/ii!{i."  ]».  247. 

••  from  whati'ver  eanse.'"  p.  '247. 

••  good  order  and  eondiiion."'  j).  '248, 

••heat,  suffocation  and  the  other  ill  effeets  of  being  crowded," 

p.  2411. 
••inevitable  aeeidents."  p.  2<l!. 

••just  and  reasonal)le."  pp.  14(t-141. 

••  iidiereni  doierioralion."  p.  2r)(t. 

••  leakage  ami  hrcakage."'  pp.  2r)0-2r)2. 

••  load  and  unload."  pp.  2.V2.  2.");;. 

••  loss."  p.  2.');{. 

••  owner's  risk."  p.  2.">:i. 

•'  on  lakes  or  rivers."  p.  2.V). 

••  (tn  the  train."  i».  2.-)(i. 

••  package,"  pp.  217.  21S. 

••  perils  of  the  lake."  p.  221. 

••  perils  of  the  river."  p.  221. 

••  perils  of  the  sea<."  lip.  221.  401. 

••  pi>ri-lialile  properly."  p.  2.')(). 

••  i)ilot.  nni-ter  or  mariners."  p.  2r>7. 

••  place  of  destination."  p.  257. 

••  port  of  discharge."  p.  2r.s. 

••  privilege  of  reshipi)ing."  p.  2."iS. 

••  puhlic  enemy."  l".  14. 

••quantity  guaranteed."  p.  2V.I. 

••restraints  of  princes."  p.  2.V.I. 

••  rust,"  p.  401. 

'•  robbers,"  p.  2(;0. 
••suffocation,"  p.  200. 


'■^/- 


■    } 
.    t 


h 

, 

} 

1  : 

p; 

J 

1" 

'th 


474 


INDEX. 


COMMON  CAHRIKHS— Contiiuietl. 
•■  tliiovos,"  p.  '200. 
"  throiigli  witliout  traiissfer,"  |>.  •Jtll. 
••  t(»\v  iuul  assist  vessels,"  p.  2('>1. 
•■  uiiiiv()i(lal)le  aceidi'iits."  pp.  -H'd.  ■JIJ;?. 
••value  and  contents  unknown,"  pp.  JCil.  it!."!. 
•■  vieioiisni'ss."  p.  •J(>(i. 
•'  \vat(M'ecl  and  feil,"  p.  -Jiiil. 
••  weatiier,  injiu'ies  occasioned  by."  p.  "Jdi). 
conllict  of  laws  as  affect inj;;  conlracls  of  carriers,  p.  'JtJO-'ifin. 
consideration  necessary  to  snp))Mri  conlraci  limiting   liability,  pp. 
270-27-J. 

ajii'eenient  to  carry  not   siillicient.  p.  271. 
but  reduced  conipensatii'U  snllicient.  ]),  272. 
fi'ce  pass  snllicient.  p.  272. 
l)ower  of  aj;'ei>t  of  owner  to  make  contracts,  pj).  ;i2s-;{;{0. 

autlioriiy  given  to  shi|)  canies  antlKtiity  to  nnike  contracts,  p. 

:{27. 
who  is  an  ••  agent  "  for  tlii<  purpose,  pj).  ;)2S-I>:'>(). 
consignor  is  agent  of  ciuh-ignre.  p|).  :i2S. 
vendor  is  agent  of  vendee,  p.  ;{2S. 
cartinan  or  porti-r  not  w  itliin  the  rule,  ]>.  :i21i. 
carrier  uccmI  not  examine  authority  of  agent,  p.  :tl>(). 
carrie\'"s  knowledge  of  agent's  want  of  authority.  |).  \V,U. 
liability  of  agent  to  princi)i;il.  p.  :t:il. 
power  of  agent  of  carrier  to  make  contracts.  p|>.  ;i;{2-;{n. 

agent  of  carrit'r  presumed  to  have  antlKuity  to  make  contrat't.-. 

pp.  :i:52-:5:<:{. 

when  carrier  bound  by  acts  of  agents,  j).  :{:{|. 
when  carrier  not  liound  by  acts  of  agi'iits.  ;!;{ I-Ii:?(i. 
connecting  carriers.  i)p.  ;{(2-:{((S. 

carrier  may  contract  to  carry  beyond  his  route,  pp.  :m;!.  ;mi. 
or  may  limit  his  resi)on-ibility  to  his  o\\  n  route,  p.  ;tl4. 

but  still  lialili'  in  sonii'  ca-es.  p.  ;il.-|. 
what  is  evidence  of  conlraci   for  through  transjtortation.  j),  ;i I."), 
in  I'.ngland  receipt  of  parcel  marked  to  point  is  evidence  of 

through  colli  r;'.;i.  ;>   I!  I.">. 
rule  othorwi-e  in  Ameiic  a.  p)).  :!."i;.  :{."(7. 
which  carrier  may  be  sued.  p.  ;{."i(I. 
when  coniu'ctiiig  carrier  may  claim  exemjuions  in  tlrst  contrai'l. 

pp.  :i()2.  :Hi4. 
when  exemptions  in  contract  with  tlrst  carrier  do  noi  enure  to 
C(Uiiiectiiig  carrier,  pp.  liiil.  litis. 
burden  of  proof  in  actions  again>^t,  pp.  liiUi-lisi, 
on  carrier,  jip.  l!(l!>-:!72. 

to  show  necessity  for  deviation,  p.  lit. 

to  show  that  loss  aro^e  from  cause  for  which  he  was  not   re- 
sponsible, pp.  ;{(i!i-;i7((. 


i¥^ 


BH?; 


INDEX. 


475 


l>p. 


COMMON  CAKIMKIiS-C.iuimu'a. 

to  itrovr  conlnu't  limilinj;  lialiility.  p.  871. 
to  sliow  that  icfeii)t  contaiiiiiif,'  t-xemplions  was  accppted  in 
good  faith,  pp.  :{71-:i7-_>. 

to  show  tliat  loss  is  witlilii  cxfinptions  in  coutnu't,  nn  :172 
-101 .  11- 

to  show  u('-,'ligen.H>  when  lo<s  falls  within  an  ext'ented  peril 
:{74-:{77. 
tlie  rnle  in  Alabama.  i)p.  ;;77-;!7!i. 
to  show  coinpliance  with  comlitions  when  cxciuplion  is  i-on- 
liitionai.  \'.  ;!.s(). 
on  shippoi-.  pp.  ;{7--;iS'. 

to  show  n<-gli;reiii.('  when  loss  falls  within  an  excepted  peril, 
:{72-;{7:{.  iKi. 

to  .show  that  loss  was  from  cause  for  whit'h  cMiriiM-  was  to  be 
specially  liable,  j).  ;{8(). 
pleadinjf  :!S()-:isl. 

doclaialion  sIhmiM  be  niion  eommon  law  liabillu  of  carrier,  p. 

:IW). 
if  on  contract,  exceptions  llnl^t  l)e  stateil  when.  ;{S(I. 
person  to  whom  receipt  is  j;iven  may  bring  action,  p.  ;{81. 
(JOM'LK T  OF  I-AWS. 

as  affecting-  the  construction  of  contracts  limiting  liabilily,  pp.  iJOii- 
•-'(lli. 

CON  m:(  TIC rr. 

carrier  may  limit  liis  lialiility  by  contract,  p.  ;i(!. 
but  not  for  negligence,  p.  :!(i. 
noi'  l)y  notice,  p.  Ii(>. 

COXNKCTINt;  CAUIMKHS. 

effci't  of  deviation  by  connecting  carrier,  [ip.  lt<4.  IS."). 

carrier  may  contract  to  carry  beyond  his  loute.  jip.  ',]\',t.  '.Ui. 

or  uuiy  limit  his  responsibilii\  to  his  own  route,  p.  IU4. 
but  still  liable  in  some  cases,  p.  li-t.'i. 

what  is  eviiitMh'c  of  contract  for  through  transportation,  p.  lUo. 

in  Kngland  receipt  of  parcel  marked  lo  point  is  evidence  of 

through  coiiti'act.  i>p.  'M't.  It.Vi. 
rule  otherwise  in  America,  pp.  I?."'!',  itri". 
construction  of  special  ccmtracts.  pp.  I{.">7-3G1. 
which  carrier  may  be  sued.  p.  Moti. 

when  connecting  carrier  may  claim  exemptions  in  lirst  contract,  pp. 
MVI-MH. 

when  exceptions  in  contract  with  first  carrier  do  not  enure  to  con- 
necting carrier,  pp.  l{(!4-lt(;s. 

CONMDEKATION. 

necessarv  to  support  cmitract  limiting  liability,  |»p.  270-27'J. 
agreement  to  carry  not  sullicient.  p.  271. 
but  reducfd  compensation  sullicient,  p.  272. 


:  ■'•I 


»<ti«^tl»i'llf°»li 


!  '^^  ;J 


;  I,,  . 


I: 


ir 


if 


47»)  INDKX. 

C'ONSIDKHATIOX— ('(Mitiiuied. 
free  psiss  sulliiicnt.  p.  272. 

COXSTJtUCTlON  OF  LOSTllAVTS.     .W  ("on  ri!.\n>:    Intkhi-kkta- 

TION. 

COX'raXTS.     .SV(.  Vauk  and  ("ontknts. 

"COXTKXTS  rXKXOWN."  ,sVf  ■Vai.ii;  am»  Contknt;*  Unknown." 

COXTKACTS. 

powtT  of  ciinicr  to  limit  liis  liability  liy  roiitract.  j).  H-'u. 
may  do  so  except  for  iit'^lijiciu-c.  p|>.  2l-(ir.  1   >■.  1(1!). 
power  formcil ;.  not  admitleil,  p.  2."). 
ri^jor  of  tlio  ancient  iido  lehi:  ed.  p.  2."). 
ie<!:rets  at  tlie  aliandomiient  of  tlie ancient, rnjo. |).  27. 
tlie  Knfjllsli  statutes.  i)p.  2S.  .'.!».  ;iO. 
the  rule  in  Amoiica.  pp.  'M,  t27. 

in  the  Federal  Courts,  pjt.  :{2,:{,S{. 

in  Alabama,  p.  Xi. 

in  Arkansas,  p.  :u. 

in  California,  p]).  :M. ;{."). 

in  Colorado.  |).  2<l. 

in  Connecticut,  p.  :{(i. 

in  Delaware,  p.  :{(J. 

in  Florida.  )>.  '.W. 

in  (;eory:ia,  pp. ;{(»,  ,i7.  ;{,s. 

in  Illinois,  ])p.  :ts,  ;{•). 

ill  I.uliana,  p.  :{!). 

in  Iowa,  p.  40. 

ill  Kansas,  p.  ll. 

ill  Konliicky.  p.  Jl. 

in  F.oiiisiana,  pp.  !I,  (2. 

in  Maine.  \).  42. 

ill  Maryland,  pp.  42.  V.i. 

in  Massaclinsetls.  ]>.  4;{. 

ill  Micliiyan.  p.  44. 

in  Minnesoia.rp.  44. 

ill  Mississippi,  p.  4;,. 

in  Missouri,  pp.  I.').  4(!. 

in  Xeliraska.  |».  47. 

in  Xevada.  p.  47. 

in  Xew  llanipsliire.  p.*47. 

in  Xew  .Jersey,  p.  4S. 

ill  Xew  York.  pp.j4S/4ii. 

ill  Xortli  (  arolina.  p|>.  .">(»,  ."»|. 

in  oliio.  pp.  .*ii.  :>•>. 


Ill  <  ►re^iMI.  p.  ."(2. 

ill  I'eniisylvauia.  pp.  .*i2, 
ill  IMiode  |s|,.||„|.'|,.  54. 
in  South  (  arolina.  ji.  54. 


.-);{. 


INDKX. 


477 


•ki{I'I{p:ta- 


S  KNOWN." 


CONTRACTS— Coiituuicd. 

in  'IVniK'ssoc.  ]>   'A. 
ill  Toxii.-;.  p.  55. 
in  Veniiotit.  \>.  55. 
in  Viijiiuiii.  p.  55. 
in  West  Vii';iiiii!i.  p.  55. 
in  AVisconsiii.  p.  5(i. 
policy  of  iillowiii;^  ;i  limited  lialiilily.  p.  5K. 
rciisons  iijiiiiiist  tlie  diu'lriiic.  pj).  5'.i.  (10. 
views  of  the  jiulf^es  //)•«  :md  ran.  pp.  (iO-80. 
notioo  niiiy  he  waived  liy  spceial  e(iiiir;vct  with  different  tcrnis, 

p.  110. 
notices  only  proposals  for  contracts,  p.  1(15. 
iinil  unless  assented  to  do  not  make  contracts,  p.  106. 
how  assent  may  be  evidenced,  p.  107-1 12. 

asaeii'  from  accept  in;;-  paper-  coiitaiiiin^-  conditions,  pp.  107-127. 
hills  of  ladiii}?.  lip.  107-10!>. 

acceptance  of  hill  of  Indinjj  hinds  owner. to  conditions  con- 
tained therein,  pp.  107,  416. 
rnle  in  Illinois,  pp.  111.  1!S;{. 

hut  not  lo  conditions  attached  to  it  and  not,  part  thereof,  pp. 
ii:i-iiii. 

hill  of  ladiiiL;  lioth  a  receipt  and  a  contract.  p.'ia2. 
receipt  part  may  lie  varied  hy  parol,  i).  1112. 
hiit  contract  jiartcan  not  he  contradicted, jip.  132,  13;i. 
cnllaUTal  airreeineiii  may  lie  shown,  p.  1116. 
so  alMi  may  snpplementary  contract,  pp.  1116-137. 
fraud  ni,.y  he  shown,  pp.  l;i7-l  10. 
duress  n.  <y  he  shown,  pp.  1117-140. 
mistake  i  lay  he  shown,  pi).  1;{7-110. 
an   'C"d.  iit  ii   reements  are  merged  in  writing,  p.  133. 
snl,se(iiient  di  iiveryof  liiil  of  lading  do('s  not  alter  contract. 

p.  i;u. 
nor  d' livery  o*^  writing  after  occnrrcnce  of  loss,  pp.  l.li),l,J(),^»^ 
exi>ress  receipts,  pp.  10!'.  110. 

acceptance  of  express  receipt  binds  ownor  to  conditions  in 

it,  i>p.  lO'.l.  110.  113,  lid. 
hut  not  to  tlios(«  attached  to  it  and  not  part  thereof,  pp.  101). 

110.  113.  lit], 
rnle  in  Illinois,  p.  ill. 
<'liaracter  of  emiiloyment  not  ehangcd  hy  .ontract,  pp.  128,M2!).  130. 
4111. 
except  in  special  citses.  p.  131. 
contract  limiting  liahility  may  lie  hy  parol.'p-  131. 
larrier  may  contract   for  heiictit  of  insurance  effected  hy  owner  on 

goods,  p.  151. 
ahan(h>nnient  of  contract,  pp.  r.iO-102. 
constniotion  of  contracts  limiting  liability,  pp.  l!i7-2«!). 
31 


11  !t 


II  II 


11 


r..g!-,U!M.'l.l->.W*'»JHff 


478 


INDKX. 


;■;'.:    I 


■J 


CONTKA(TS-C(.iitihiuMl. 

i'X('oi)li"ii«  ill  (•(iiiiiMci  riiiislnu'd  sirii'tly.  pp.  l!t7,llW. 

jjciuTiil  woiils  f()lli)\viiii;  piirtie'iiliir  cxciiilitioiis  iiieliidoonly 

tliu-ic  oi  •iniilar  chiiriiclcr.  p.  I'.is. 
i-anirr's  n ciipi  mi'U  bf  taki'ii  altoj^etlier,  p.  I'.is. 
I'liii^triiclinii  of  till'  iiiaxiiii  vx/irffiKio  nniits  fut  i.rrlusiintUfrius, 

(1(1  cxiin'-i-i  cxccptioiis  exclude   implied   ones.   pp.  200. 

(ipinioii  "f  HiiTcldw.  C.  J.,  in  (ia;^!'  v.  Tirrcll.  i>p.  '20S. 
'-Ml. 
ti'iiu-' iirm^uraiici-  policit'-;  and  hills  of  ladiiij;-  (•((iHtnicd  dlffor- 

oiilly.  pi>.  -Jl  l-Jltl. 
iiiterpi't'taiioii  of  woi^ls  and  piirasi^s  in  ('(Hiirai'ts,  21ii-'iii'.>. 
••accidciilal  delays."  ]•.  211). 
••  act  of  (IikI."  p.  ."). 
>-a;:n'f>."'  p.  217. 
'•all  rail."  \>.  217. 
••arlirlc."  pp.  217.  21S. 
'•biifjfiaf-v."  p.  21S. 
••hill  of  ladiii!,'."  p.  1;<1- 
••  l»ri"akaj;c.""  pp.  2.")().  2.">2. 
-C.  «).  1).."  p.  2111.  220. 
"  cuiiiiiiun  (  anicr."  p.  2. 
'•conlt'iils  niikiiowii."  pp.  2ill.  2t!.'). 
••  daiua;;!'."  p.  220. 

'*  duii;;tMs  im'idi'iit  to  llic  iiavi-jatioii  of  the  livt'i."  p.  221. 
••  daiijr«'i>  of  iiavi;;atioii."  i)p.  221-212. 
"  duiijJCfis  of  the  lake."  p.  221. 
"dangers  of  llic  river. ""  p.  221. 
*'  diinjicrs  of  the  roads."  p.  212. 
"danfjer-  of  the  >eas."  p.  221. 
••detUdeney  in  (iiianiity."  p.  2i;>. 
|k  "d(day.'"  p.  12. 

••depot."  p.  21;'.. 
'•  deviation."  ii|).  12,  V.). 
••errors."  p.  2i:!. 
»•  escapes,"  p.  21.1. 
••extraordinary  iiiarine  risk,"  p.  214. 
••  feed,  water  and  take  projier  care  of."  p.  241. 
••lire,"  21 1-2 Hi. 
••forward,"  pp.  21i!.  42lJ. 
*•  fr(!e/.in>j."  p.  217. 
••  from  whatever  cause."  p.  247. 
*•  iifood  onU'r  and  co'iditinii."'  p.  248. 
••heat,  snffiicaiion  .md  the  other  ill  effects  of  beinj;  crowded," 

p.  24'.». 
'•inevitable  accidents,"  p.  -202. 


IS. 

t  iiK'l lido  only 

IS. 

•luniiKilterius, 
IR'S.  pp.  'JOO. 
irll.  pp.  '20S. 
tnit'd  (lift'cr- 

i(;-2i;;). 


1..  -JJI. 


'^  crowded," 


INDEX. 

■OONTIiACTS— (Joiiliniicd. 

"just  and  ica-onalilc,""  j))).  MO-in. 
••  inluTciit  dcli'iioi'iiiion."'  p.  •>:>(). 
"Icakiijifc  iiiid  liicukajjc."'  pp.  2.")0-2r)2. 
'■  loud  and  iinlnaii,"'  pp.  252,  2.');(. 
'•  Ids  •.'"  p.  2."):?. 
"  OUT  it's  risk."  p.  2.");i. 
*•  oil  lakes  or  rivers,"  p.  2.");'). 
"  on  ilic  irain."  p.  2r)(i. 
"  packa^jf."  pp.  217.  21S. 
••  perils  of  the  lake,"  ji.  221. 
"  i»erils  of  the  river,"  p.  221. 
"  jicrils  of  the  seas."  pp.  221.  401. 
"  jieiishalile  property."  p.  2.")(i. 
»•  pilot,  master  oi-  niaiiiiers."  p.  257. 
'>  place  of  destiiialioii,"  ]i.  257. 
"  port  of  diseharjre."  p.  25S. 
"  inivilejje  of  reshippinj;,"  p.  25S. 
♦'  pnlilie  enemy."  p.  II. 
"i|iiaiitity  f^iiaiaiitec'd,"  p.  25!). 
"restraints  of  j)riiu'L's,"  p.  250. 
"  nisi,"  p.  101. 
'•  rohhers,"  p.  2(;(). 
"suffocation."  p.  2(i(). 
"  thieves."  p.  2i!(t. 
"  throiijih  without  transfer,"  p.  201. 
'•  tow  and  assist  vessels,"  p.  2(51. 
"  iinavoidahle  accidents,"  pp.  2()2,  2I!:{. 
"  value  and  contents  niiknown,"  pp.  204,  205. 
"  vlcioiisness,"  p.  20(1. 
"watered  and  fed."  p.  200. 
"  weather,  liijiuies  occasioned  by,"  J).  20(5, 
•ooiitllct  of  laws  a:    iffeoti-g  contfictf*  of  carriers,  j).  200-200. 
consideration  necessary  to    iippo-*^  contract  limiting  liability,  pp. 
270-272. 

agreement  to  cai.y  not  siillicieut,  p.  271. 
hilt  reduced  compensation  sniHcient.  p.  272. 
free  pass  siillicient.  p.  272. 
ixiwer  of  agent  of  owner  to  make  contracts,  pp.  ;J2S-:j:}0. 

authority  given  to  ship  carries  authority  to  make  contracts*,  p. 

:!27. 
who  is  an  "  agent  "  for  this  purpose,  pj).  ;528-:$:50. 

consignor  is  agent  of  consignee,  pp.  ;528. 

vendor  is  agent  of  vendee,  p.  1528. 

cartman  or  porter  not  within  the  rule.  p.  320. 
carrier  need  not  examine  authority  of  agent,  p.  ;5;5(). 
carrier's  knowledge  of  agent's  want  of  authority,  p.  ;!;51. 
liahility  of  agent  to  priiicitial,  p.  :5:51. 


.M' 


m 

P 


480 


INDKX. 


« ONTMACTS— roiitliiiUMl. 

powiT  of  nf,'t'nt  of  ciUTicr  to  make  coiifriicts.  j)|).  :J:i2-;Ul. 

iijjciit  of  I'liirior  piosuiiii'il  to  liavc  iiiUlioilly  lo  iiiakti  foutnu'ls. 

pp.  :J:w-n:»;{. 

wln'ii  farrier  boiiiid  liy  acts  of  aj,'<'iils,  p.  :t:W. 
when  carrier  not  hound  )»y  acts  of  a>;ciits.  :{;||-IIH(>. 
cimiicctinjj  carrier-;,  pp.  HPJ-Htls, 

carrier  may  contract  to  carry  licyoini  iiis  roiile.  pp.  :<i:t,  ;< t4. 
or  may  limit  liis  res|ionsil)ility  to  liis  own  route,  p.  :iit. 

lint  still  liable  in  souie  cnses.  p.  Itl.'i. 
winit  is  evidence  of  contract  for  tlu'on<;h  transportation,  ]).  :il.*>. 
in  Kn;;land  receipt  of.  parcel  marked  to  point  is  evidence  of 

llnon^li  contr.icl.  j).  ;H.'). 
rule  otlierwise  in  .Knu-rica.  pp.  U.">t!.  :i.">". 
which  carrier  nuiy  he  sued.  p.  H.")(>. 
when  connecting  carrier  may  claim  exemptions  in  first  contract. 

p|).  M>-2.  Ktil. 
when  exemptions  in  contract  w  ith  tirsl  carrier  do  not  enur<!  to 
coimectiufj  carrier,  pp.  Itiil.  ;i(is. 
burden  of  proof  in  actions  against,  pp.  ;i(>!i-:tSI. 
on  carrier,  pp.  H(!!t-;J72. 

to  show  neie-isity  for  deviation,  p.  \'.\. 

to  show  that  loss  arose  from  cause  for  which  he  was  nt)t  re- 
sponsible. |>p.  :{(>l>-;t7(). 
to  prove  contract  limititi};  liability,  p.  ;{7I. 
to  show  that  receipt  containiuf;;  csemj)tions  was  acce|)ted  in 

good  faith,  pj).  ;{"l-;t72. 
to -how  that  loss  is  within  exemptions  in  contract,  pp.  'A72, 

401 
to  sliow  iie>;li<;ence  wlien  loss  falls  w  ilhin  an  excepted  peril. 
:{74-:{77. 
the  rule  in  .Mabama.  pj).  ;{77-:i7'.l. 
to  show  coniplianct;  with  conditions  when  exemption  is  con- 
ditio;ial.  p.  :{S(). 
■  m  shipj)er.  jtp.  :{7'J-IJS1. 

to  show  negli;;ence  when  loss  falls  within  an  excejited  i)eril. 

:!72-:«7:<.  4i(i. 
to  show  that  loss  was  from  cause  for  whiiii  carrier  was  to  hi- 
si)ecially  liable,  j).  ;{W). 
pleading  ;tS(l-:tMl. 

<leelaralion  should  be  upon  common  law  liability  of  carrier,  p. 
:{Mu. 

if  on  contract,  exceptions  must  be  stated  when,  :IS(). 
person  to  whom  receipt  is  giv(Mi  nniy  bring  action,  p.  ItSI. 
<  rsTOM.    .SV(  Usage. 

D. 
••I>.\MA(JK," 

construction  of  this  word  in  hills  of  lading,  p.  2"iO. 


; 


INDKX. 


481 


"  DANOKHS  INCIDKNTTO  THK  NAVIGATION  OF  TlIK  IIIVEU.- 

Sci-  '•  l)AN(;i:US  (»K  N.WKIATION." 

••  DANMJIOKS  OK  NAVKiATION," 

plinistw  ••  iHMils  of  the  scus."  ••  pi'ills  of  tlie  rlviT,"  " perils  of  tlic 
lakf.""  ••  (liiii;;('rs  of  the  sens."  ••  dtiiifjiTs  of  the  liver."  ••  tliiiiKers 
of  llie  lake."  ••  nii!ivoi(liil)l<'  (laii;;crs  of  tlh-  river."  ••  (iiui;cers  in- 
fideiit  to  tlie  n;ivii,Mtioii  of  tlie  river."  ••  iiievitiil)lr  lu  cidents  " 
1111(1  "  iiiiiivdi  '  ilile  aceideiit!*."  lire  !<yiionyinoiiH  mid  convertible, 
pp.  -JJ!). 
"  dimj;eis  of  iiiivij;iilion  "  Itroiider  tliiiii  ''net  of  God."  IteeaiHe  tlicy 

include  iiiiiiiiiii  iiaeney."  p.  2:i'.t. 
wliat  are  wltliin  lliese  exceptions,  pp.  22'.)-2;M. 

hidden  ol)siriictions  in  river  wliieh  ai'e  Miiavoidal)ie,  p.  i'M. 

dense  fo;j.  p.  21(0. 

dellection  of  conipas-,  p,  2:«i. 

careening;  of  \('--el  at  wiiarf.  |i.  2150. 

l>oi.s|eron-  wcallii'r  and  adver-c  winds,  p.  2;<0. 

sudden  sipialls.  ]i.  2:tO. 

iow  tides.  J).  2:t(). 

openinf^  of  seams  of  vessel,  [t.  'I'M. 

dampness  in  hold  of  vessel  eiinsed  hy  weather,  p.  I'M. 

daina;;e  l)y  sweatiiij;  of  car^jo  caused  liy  weather,  [k  'I'M. 

loss  liy  jettison,  p.  2:il. 

collision  of  vessels,  p.  2;!2. 

criticism  of  this  rnlin;j.  pp.  2;{2-2;n. 
what  not  within  these  exceplinns.  pp.  2;II-2I2. 

no  loss,  however  accidental,  tlie  result  of  the  negligence  of  the 
carrier,  p.  2:U. 

a*  l»y  lieiiifj;  hadiy  stowed,  p.  2:it!. 

diii>'  of  I'lui'icr  to  prevent  consei|nences  of  injury,  p.  2;iii. 
dainpne>s  or  sweatiii;^  of  lar^o  not  caused  ity  weather,  [ip.  2;t".t. 

•1(»1. 
rollinj;  of  vi'--e|.  p.  2;i!l. 
leak  not  caused  liy  -lornw.  ]».  2;!!t. 
damage  caused  tiy  rat-  or  other  vermin,  ji.  2;H». 
theft  or  rohltery  not  piracy  on  the  hii:;li  seas.  p.  2H!>. 
theft  hy  strangers  or  person^  on  hoard  sliip.  p.  2IW. 
<lepredation  on  ship's  stores  hy  crew  or  passengers,  p.  2:50. 
liairalrous  acts  of  crew.  ]).  2:t!i. 
emhez/lemen!  liy  ollicers,  p.  2;{!l. 
plundering  of  ciisiom  house  ollicer.  p.  2;i'.i. 
uiiskilfninc^s  of  pilot,  p.  2H». 
tleserlion  or  iiKiilionlinatioM  of  seamen,  p.  211). 
aceidental  lire.  p.  2 in. 
exidosion  of  lioiler  of  steamship,  p.  21(t. 
low  water  in  rivci'  or  liarhor.  p.  210. 
sliifling  of  hiioy.  ji.  210. 
Injury  caused  by  c<iuiari  with  other  cargo,  p.  211. 


4«2 


INDEX. 


DAN(JKKS  OF  N'AVHJATION  '"— ("..iitlmi.il. 

injury  caiiKcd  In  want  (if  vi'iitilalldii.  p.  JII. 


ffSr 


'i 


(Iclt'iilidii  (if  ship  liy  war,  p.  'Jll. 


]>A\UKHS  OK  Till;  I-AKi;." 
I»AN(JKHS  OF  TIIK  IIIVIOU. 


>«•(■ 


DANdi'.ns  OK  \avh;.\tion." 

•  |)AN(ii;US    (»K    NaVICAI  ION. 


•' DANOKHS  OF  TIIK  HOADS." 

('(inslnictidii  of  tliis  plirasc  in  liiiln  df  l:i<lin;r.  ji.  -I-. 
"l)AN(iKUS  OK  THK  SKAS."     ,s.,  ••  |)AN(ii;ns  ok  N AViiiAiioN." 

"DEFICIENCY  IN  grANTlTY." 

(■(iiistnu'tidii  (if  [Uvsi'  Wdi'ds  in  liiils  of  jadin;;.  p.  'Jtli. 

DEFKt'TS. 

in  f,'d(HlH  oiiriicd;  cunicr  ndt  lialilc  for,  p.  1."). 

DEI.AWAHK. 

jidwcr  td  limit  liability  iidl  (Icrldcd.  |i.  ;iti. 

DELAY. 

|ds«  by  act  df  (Jod  after,  carrier  liable,  p.  I  J. 

(ilitcr  in  I'ennsylvania.  Massaclinsetis  and  Nebraska,  p.  I  "J. 
delay  as  affectinjj  contracts  liniiiinj;  liabiliiy.  p|).  |m;-I!iJ. 

effect  of  delay  on  exoinptions  in  cdnliaits,  |).  Is7. 

cdnlracis  cdncerniiif;  delay  cdii-irned.  p.  jss. 

cdutiacts  td  dclivcf  In  spec;     d  time  cdnslrned,  ji.  IMi. 

delay  by  nets  of  mob.  p.  IP... 
"DErOT.*"" 

constinctioii  of  tliis  word  in  bills  of  ladinj;,  ]•.  )l\,L 

DEVIATION, 

detiiution  of.  p   1'J. 

loss  by  act  of  (Jod  after,  carrier  liable,  pp.  IJ,  i;i. 

illustration  of  this  principle,  p.  i:t. 
exen.sed  by  real  necessity,  p.  i;i. 

bnrden  to  show  neco.-i  y  on  earlier,  p.  lit. 
deviiition  as  affectUifj  contracts  limitinj;  liability,  pp.  l.*>;l-lS(i. 

by  dcvialiiif?  from  manner  of  cairiaf^e.  carrier  looses  benellt  of 
exemptions.  |)p.  ISI.  IS2-1S4. 
contracting^  to  -end  by  sailing;  vessel  and  shippiiijj  by  steam. 

p.  1.S2. 
a;rroein{;lo  carry  "all  rail  "  and  Iransportinj;  by  sea.  p.  1S2. 
contract    to  forward  by  particular  vessel   nmsi  be  followed, 

p.  18:5. 
effect  of  deviation  by  connectinfj  carrier,  pp.  isl-ls."). 
consent  of  shipper,  p.  IHtt. 
failure  of  carrier  to  conform  to  public  re^julations.  p.  IsO. 

DlSl'ATi  II  CO.MPANIES. 

liable  for  acts  and  defaults  of  a;;encies  which  they  employ,  pp.  'MG- 
341. 
Dl'UESS, 

in  execution  of  bill  of  ladinjj  may  be  shown  by  parol,  pii.  i;57-l  10. 


INUKX. 


483 


E. 

ENOLANI). 

ti'lcfXiiipli  I'liiiiiniiilc-  iirc  (•"iimi'ii!  i  unlci-.  \\.  :'. 
ciirrli'i's  (if  iinininU  not  I'oiiiinoii  (m;;  ici-.  p.  ;". 
canU'r  iiuiy  limit  liis  lluliilliy  l>y  t(iiiir:ii  t.  \\  .1'. 

even  fill'  eoil-e(|l|e|iee>  (.f  jiis  (i',\  n  lli  ■ileei.  I'!',  i".  -Til.  -''<• 
llio  Kiij.'ii>li  >iiiliite-  a-  Id  I'lirriei ".  p.  '.'s. 

tlie  KailwMV  and  Canal  TnilVie  aei.  •>!>.  '.'>'.  -"1.  '.'■". 

wlial  are  ••  rea-onatile  ami  ji-t  "  c'iii>rniiiii-  nnil"i' lliis  act. 

pp.  III).  111.  1 1-.*, 
wliat  are  not  >•  jiisl  and  rea«(inalile  imelire  n-."  pl'.  1 1-.  I  l-l- 

tlie  Carriers  aet.  pp.  in;;.  KM. 
tlu>  Kn;,'lisli   (lurtrine  eiineerniii,;;'  iniiiuM'lii;:;  eanier-.  pp.  '.U.'-'.t.V), 

:;.">r,. 

••  KUItOHS."' 

fonstruetitm  nl'  tlii'^  wonl  in  l'ill>  <«l  linliei:.  p.  •-!;!. 

••ESCAI'KS." 

cnn.-irneticni  of  till-  woni  in  li'.ll- ol  liei'ii^u'.  p.  ."■'■^. 
KVlKKNCi:.      >'"  151  i:i-KS  ok  I'liooi  ;  !';;>. -i  viiTiuN. 
KXl'KKSS  (OMI'AMKS. 

ai  •  coninKHi  eaniei-.  p.  '2. 

in  WiMon-in.  may  limil  llieir  lial.iliiy  as  ii.M.ivi..  :•■■  lo  ne-lifli'uecof 

a!_'fni~,  p.  ■ii). 
lial.lc  f.Mai't>  and  defaiili-  .'f  a-emi.  -  whuh  \\.<-,  .■niidi>>.  pp.  ■•■W- 

:!ll.  i-.!i;.  i:tti. 

Slain-  of.  not  (•lian;;ed  hy  a>rn<-m'  nl    llial  iliey  :v\'  u,  he  i  onsiai'iH'd 
a>  ••  foiwardeis."'  p.  42i;. 

KKl'HKSS  ItKCKIl'TS. 

condition-  in.  wlien  liindinj;  on  o\\  ni  ■.  pp.  lii;'-ll  i. 
examples  of  nmdein  expre-s  re.  cipt-.  pp.  -"Jl --'.>. 
••EX'n{A<)l{I)INAHY  .MAHINi:   KISK." 

c()n>tincliou  of  this  phi-a<p  in  liilN  ol  ia'iiiiL'.  p-  '.ill. 


i 


K. 

••FEKI).  WAIKH  AND    lAKK  I'KOl'FJi  <  a:;!'!  (»F.- 
oonsirnction  ol  this  phr:.-e  iii  liiil>  of  iadiuu.  \'.  211. 

ri;]{KVMi:.\. 

are  eoninuni  cairier>.  p.  '^• 

••  FIliK." 

eonsiiiielion  of  thi<  ^\ord  in  l>ills  of  ladin.-.  po.  Jil-JP.. 

FL01{ll>A. 

power  to  limit  lialiiliiy  noi  decideil.  p.  :■''. 

••FOUWAHI).*" 

eonstrnetion  of.  in  hill-  "f  lailin-;.  pp.  -ilH.  I'Jfl. 


imwiuii.       I.       -• 


H:i 


484 


INDKX. 


■;;.■* 


KOI{\VAKI)l\(J  COM  I 'AN  IKS. 

liiil)l<'  fur  ai't>  iiiiil  (li  hiiilis  of  iijiciicics  tlial  'lii'v  cinploy.  pp.iJKiMUI. 

h  11  All), 

ill  ooiM'Ciilin;;'  vsiliu'  nr  ijiiulity  of  ;;(mi(i->  sliiii]j(Ml,  n.  •>(). 
a  l)ur  lo  acrKni  ,if;aiiisl  fan  in-,  p.  -Jl. 

carrier  may  cxffpi  iiis  fiain!  Iiy  .-pi'iial  nuiliaci  in  Canada,  p.  :U. 
friUKJ  in  cxt'cnlitm  nf  !iili  of  lailiiifj  ina\  In-  >lio-,\n  liy  parol,  pp.   i;!7- 
11(1. 

FUKE  TA.^S. 

."tipnlation  in  fn'f  pa»>  cNi'miilin^'  rarrii-r  iiom   iialiility  for  ni'jjii- 
jfcnci'  voitl.  pp.  "JT^^.  -'S-J. 

tiif  doclriiu'  in  Ni'W  .)ci-c;>  ami  Indiana,  p.  US".'. 
tlic  doclrini-  in  Niw  York.  p|).  j^-.!-;i2:i. 
pcr.-^on  !ia\  inj4' frt'r  p:i-- in  lii«  iio>^r>-ion  pic-ninid  lu  he  iravclinif 

on  it.  p.  :!°-M. 
.>>tipidtition  in  fri'i'  pa-~  doc^  nui  imindi   rrinunal  liaMlliy.  p.  :I2)|. 

••rUKKZINC.- 

conslnn-lion  of  lliis  word  in  liill»  of  ladin;;:.  ;•.  JIT. 

••n{()M  wiiATKVi:!;  caisi:." 

ronstrni'iion  of  Ilii-  jliraM'  in  Idll-  of  ladin;;.  p.  ;il7. 


(5. 

(IKOlUilA, 

conlracls  llndlinu  lialiilll>  a'  lii  ~i  V()id  in  this  Slatf.  p.  M'l. 
this  rnlf  ovirruli'il  ami  smli  coniracls  sn^tainr  I,  p.  :i7. 
I>nt  notict'snot  vaiiu.  pp.  :'i7.  'ts. 
"(JOOI)  OlihKi;  AM)  (  !»M»!il(>N.'- 

ronsti'nclion  of  ihi-  phia-i-  in  liills  of  ladiiiLT.  )'•  -1^. 

II. 

•'HEAT.    .SlKFiM  ,\ri()\     \M»     III!;    nlMKK    II.!.    i:i"Ki:< '  IS  OK 
HEI.N'C  CIJOWDKI)." 

ronslrnclion  of  ihis  iilira^i'  in  hill-  of  ladini;.  \i.  vil'i. 

IIOHSK  HAII.IiOADS. 

arc  I'onMMon  carrier-,  p.  J. 

IIOYMKN. 

arc  coninion  caii  i,';-.  p.  ;i. 


IM-I\()lN. 

contracts  lindtin;^  li  iliilily  xalid,  pp.  :i>>.  it'.*. 

except  wlicrc  cNcniptin;^  nciiii^rcnl  ads.  pp.  It's,  :;;). 

hnt  notices  invalid,  p.  lis. 
sli'icl  proof  of  contraci  liiidiin;:' llal.iliiy  rrijiiired.  p.  It.s;t. 
Illinois  sialnte  do"s  n^.t  affeci  riuhi  of  carrier  to  contract  with  «liip 
per  for  l)enc'i(i  of  in-iMaiice.  p.  :t><:t. 


■pp^ 


INDKX. 


485 


IlJilXOlS— CoiiliiiiH'il. 

nor  nfffct  njilil  ol  iMirifi- in  litivc  'mtormuliDii  us  in  viiliu' of  goods. 

p.  4r):{. 

INDIANA. 

OiinitT  iiiiu  liinii  lii-  lialiiliiy  by  cuntiact.  p.  W.K 
1)111  iii>l  fur  iicfi'icjiiMicc.  p.  ".!'.•. 
iiiir  hy  iidlicc.  p.  Ii!l. 

•  INEVITAUI-K  ACCIDKNTS."      Srv  ••  rNAVoii>A!M.K  A<'«'ii»KNr>."' 

••  INIIKKKNT  1)K1KIU()!!A'I'I«IN.  ■ 

ounstnicli"U  of  llii>  phni^c  in  bill*  t>l  buliiij;-.  p.  i'>^^- 

INSIHANCK, 

carrifr  :iii  iii-mcr  in  -i>\w  Vf<\<vf\<.  p.  I. 

but  i:in  ni>t  call  on  iiwiiiainc  rompaiiy  for  »i>ntribiiti'.iii.  p.  1")1. 
carrier  may  I'onirac'i    for  biiKlil  oi   insniaiuc  <'ffiM'li'd  by  owner  on 

i^oiiii--.  pp.  i.">i .  ;■'"'''• 
lliai  owner  lias  coII.'.i.mI  inilcinnity  from  insuniiue  eoiniiany  ilocs 

not  .  'least'  earlier  lii'in  liability,  pp.  l.'il.  l.Vi. 
lernw  in  insnraiiee  |.olieie.  an. I  liill-  of  lading' i-irned  differently. 

pp.  ■JII--JII!.  :!>i'.!. 
in-nrer  afti'r  payment  of  loss  entitled  toreeow     over -.jiain-t  earner. 

!'•  ••^'  •  .  •  ,     ,  ■ 

Illinois  -'atnie  d..e-  not  jnevent  earner  from  eoninieting  witU  sliip- 

jier  ii'V  beih'iii  of  insniiinec.  p.  ;<>*:$. 

NrKHi'inirMioN. 

inlerpretatioM  of  word-  and  phrases,  pp.  J'.d-Ji'i'.i. 
••  aeeidental  delay."  p.  'iHi. 
••  ;iel  of  <iod."  p.  ■•• 
••  airree-,"  p.  -17. 
-ail  rail. ■•  p. -.M 7. 
••aniele."  i.p.  217.  .'l>i. 
••  bau'.LTa'j;'  ."■  p.  '.il.'s. 
••bill  of  bi.diiii!;."  p.  i:<l- 
••break:i;:<'.""  I'l'-  ■i.Vl. -i.'i'i. 
••('.  u.  I).."  pp. -'I'.i.  i-it". 
••  eominon  carrier, ""  p-  '2- 
•■  eonleiils  nnl.nown."  pp.  'iM.  iBf», 

••  daina--.-  p.  220.  ^ 

••daiifiers  incident  to  llie  nasixation  ol  the  nver.     p.  -i. 

••  danjiPr-  of  navi'Cation."  pp.  221  --242. 

•■danirersof  ilie  lalo."  p.  221. 

••  dan^'er<  of  tlie  riv-r,""  p.  221. 

••  eM',>pe<."  p.  2i;l. 

••exiraordiiiary  marine  ri-k."  p.  244. 

..  f,.,.,l.  wai.r  and  lake  proi-er  care  of."'  p.  244. 

••lire."  pp.  2  1 1-2  HI. 

-forward.-  p|..  21'!.  I2C. 


^pjggUgjIgl 


48() 


INDEX. 


IV'.' 


W 


IXTEKI'KKTATIOX— Coiiiitiii.Ml. 

*•  frcczinij."  p.  ^47. 

••  from  wliiih'vi'i' i"iii«f.""  J).  "Jl". 

••  <;;oii(l  ordi'i' iiiiil  c'ciiidiliDii."  p.  2l>i. 

••  heat,  siiffocntioii  ;mcl  I  lit' (itlicr  ill  I'ffcci-  (ifjx'iii;^  crowdod. 

p.  •-'t!>. 
*•  incvilalilc  ai'ciilciu-."  p.  •JflJ. 
••  jiisi  ami  rca-iiii.ililc."  pp.  i  1(1-1  II. 
••  inhcn-iil  ilcli'i'lur'aliim."  p.  "-'."lO. 
••  li'aKajjc  anil  lUfaUap'."  pp.  'J.")!) -■_'."( J. 
••  load  :iiid  iiiiluad."  pp.  ■_'.")-J.  •J.'i:!. 
••  loss."  p.  -J.Vt. 
••  owiut's  risk,"  p.  J.-di. 
••  (111  laki's  <ir  riviTs."  p.  2.'i."i. 
"  on  ilio  I  rain."  p.  I'.'ii!. 
■•  p.ackairt'."  pp.  -\7.  'JI^. 
••  perils  of  the  lak'  .'  p.  Jl'1. 
••  jx'i'iN  of  tin-  riviT."  p.  .'•Jl. 
"  pi-ril-  of  tin-  -.M.  ■  pp.  -JJI.  till. 
••  pcri.-lialilr  prwpi'riy."   p.  J.'iil. 
"|tiloi.  niasicr  or  iiia'iiH'r^.  ■  p.  J.")7. 
••  plarc  iif  dfsiinat  i' 'n."  p.  2.")7. 
"l)iri  'if  di-i'liar-.."  p.  .:'t^. 
••  \r\\  llcijc  iif  ii'-liipiiinii;."  p.  -J.'i^^. 
••  piihjii-  cni'inv."  p.  I  I. 
"  <pi:uitiiy  ^Cnaranli'i'd."  p.  J.-i!!. 
••  ri'<ir;iiii|s  of  prinii-»."  p.  "J.'!!!. 
"  riis|."  p.  .(((1. 
••  rolil)f»rs."  |i.  jc.n. 
"  snffocaiion."  |>.  "JCU.    . 
••  I liii'N (•-.■■  p.  •.'HI). 
"  iImmiij^Ii  wit  1)1  in  I  i):iii-fi  I."  p.  2t!l . 
"  tow  and  a--is:  \c-».'|s.'"  p.  -Jill. 
••  il))avoi(|ali!"-  Ml',  i,!,  Ills  "  pp.  -J);!*.  •JtJit. 
"  value  and  -  inlcni*  iMiknow  ii."  pp.  'Jtil,  2t!."i. 
"  \  iejiiiisne— .  "  p.  ;Ji;ii. 
"  walei'ed  an. I  fed."  p.  Ji'ii;. 
"  weallu'i'.  iiij«irie>  oeeu'ioned  In  ."  p.  JdH. 

IOWA. 

eanicrs  prevenled  hy  -lainie  fconi  liniilin;;  tlieii-  liaK,"". .  p.  Kt. 


i 


jK'rrisoN. 

In---  liy.  a   ••  peril  of  the  -e:i,"   S.\2. 

niili'-s  neces-,iry  liy  fa.ill  of  eaiiiei-.  'i.'JJ. 

".ir.'^T  A.M»  i{i;as(>\ai;i.k.  • 

consiiiictiiin  of.  in  Kn/.clis!;      .iinti-.  l|n-lii. 


m 


t" 


[M)i:x. 


487 


••.irsT  AND  in:.\S()XABLK  ••—('.. iitimi.'d. 

l)iii(lt'ii  of  iiroviiij;  tliat  ('(iiKlitiiiii'  ;iic  "jiwt  ami  n'a.s(iii:il)lc  "  is  on 
carriiT.  :{72. 

K. 

KANSAS. 

carrier  w.\\  limit  iiis  liiibility  by  ('(nitiact.  ji.  41. 
I)tit  not   i    r  lu'trlipMicc.  p.  11. 

KIA'irCKY. 

carrier  may  lii,.      liis  liability  by  cniitiait.  \>.  11. 
liMt  iii>l  fur  1  •■;;li;:<'iii'f.  |>.  11. 
nor  bv  ii()ti(<-.  [•.  -11. 

L. 


S| 


\f 


••  i.KAK.\(;i:  .\M)  hukaka(;k." 

(•oii-tniclioii  of  ilii<  |iiiia-«'  in  bilU  of  huHii^'.  pp.  •2.')0--2r>-J. 

i,K(;ai.  immxkss. 

sci/.uii'  <if  '^'»n\>  iiiiiliT.  ("-.bai'u'o  I'aiiifr.  pp.  IS.  I'.l. 
(liscorilaiit  ticcisioii-.  p.  1'.'. 

I.KJIirMKN. 

aif  coiiiinoii  cariiiTs.  p.  ;i. 

LIMITA  riON. 

carrbi- may  pn-^ciilpi-  tiiiif  witliiii  wbiili  claiins  iini-^t  be  iiiaib-.  pp. 

11I-1.".0. 

siiili  ic^riilalion-  valiil  >vlnii  na-oiiablc.  H(-l.">lt. 

I.IVK    Sr<»('K.       ,SV«    ('AKKIKKS  OK    ,\M>IAI-S. 

•  LOAI'  AM>  rSl.dAI)." 

(•nn-lrm'iiMti  of  tlii-c  w.    -N  \u  M.iok  coiitrai-ts.  pp.  -J.VJ. -Ja:!. 

"LOSS." 

coiiMru.  iiuii  of  ilii.-  wonl  in  bill-  of  ladinj,'.  p.  -J.');!. 

Lori-IA.NA. 

tow-boats  art'  coiiimoii  rarricis.  p.  '.i. 
( arrit'r  may  limi'  lii-  liability  by  roiitnict.  p.  41. 
but  ii-it  by  if-iii'.  )>.  11. 
iKir  liy  in'^li;:finf.  p.  41. 

f xippl  in  •■aM-  of  lv«^  t>ass.  p.  4i. 


iMAINI).  ..,,,>   J.) 

carri.'r  ma>  limit  linl«»hv  by  o.«mm<r  or  noiir.-  as-ciib-.i  to.  p.  -»- 

bni  iKit  for  ni\j>l^ffmi'".  p.  ^'J. 

MAI.FKASANCK. 

liability  wf  caiTit-r  loi .  pp.  r.id-l'.'i. 

MAUY1.A%I». 

.•arrit-r  m.iv  tiiiiil  lii-^  liability  by  .•oiitiwt.  p.  4- 
btw  u-'t.  il  -<'t'in-:.  by  notice,  pi'.  42.  4;(. 


488 


INDKX. 


i 


# 


MASSAClirSKTTS. 

I'iinit'r  may  limit  liis  liiil)ility  l>y  coiitriiot.  p.  V.i. 
hilt  not  l»y  iioliii!  imasscnlod  to,  p.  l',). 
nor  form'^lif(t'iu'L'.  p.  43. 

MICHIGAN, 

carrifi's  of  animals  not  common  carritTS.  p.  17. 

rifjlit  of  I'aarior  to  limit  his  liahility  at  llrst  ilfnicil.  p.  1 1. 

hnt  suhst'tpifntly  concedt'd  wIkmi  l)y  contract,  p.  II. 

statute  iftpiiii's  written  t-ontract  sijjnod  by  owner,  p.  II. 

MIXNK.SOTA. 

cariiiT  may  limit  his  common  law  liahility.  p.  II. 

cxcc|)t  for  nc<>li;;ciicc  of  himself  or  aj^ents,  p.  41. 
MIS.SISSIPPI. 

by  statute  carrier  ma\  limit  lial>ilily  hy  contract.  )>.  I.'i. 

except    for  lie;,'!!!;!"!!,.,',  p.  4."i. 

and  iini  hy  ii  ■lice.  ]>.  I.">. 

Missonn. 

carrier  may  liuiit  his  iial)ilit.\  hy  contract,  p.  !.">. 
hilt  nut  for  ne<jli<;encc.  pp.   I.'i.  |ii. 
nor  hy  initice.  p.   |(!. 

MI.STAKH. 

in  execution  .it  hill  of  ladin;;'  may  lie  >ho\\  n  hy  parol,  pp.  i:!7-l  UK 

MOB. 

(leHrrnetion  of  ^jouds  hy  moh  when  not  eviiiencc  of  ne;;liicencc.  pp. 
-ilU.  4l!l. 

N. 

NKHUASKA. 

carrier- can  noj     onirac!  ft>r  exiMoplion  from  ncj^liirence.  |i.  17. 

SKGlAiiHSri:. 

ami  act  of  ( ioil  cuiiciirrinj:.  i';irrier  ii.ihle,  p.  II. 

illustration  ol  ihi.  principle,  p.  II. 
of  owner  of  tJo(i(U  ili-char;re-  carrier,  pp.  20.  -'-'. 
rarrli'f  may  h.v  cciniract  c.Nccpi   liahility  for.  in  Kn^jlaml.  pp.  Jil.  J7. 
I:is.  Kill.  27.1. 
ami  in  I  anada.  p.  :tl. 
hill  iini  in  .Vnierii  a.  p)i,  tl.  Itj.  Pi'.i.  27:t.  ill. 

except   ill   New   ^'ol'k.  pp.   1>>.   I7li-17ti. 
llie  ride  in  .\merica.  pp.  :tl-J7;l. 

in  the  Kederal  Court-,  pp.  :1J.  ;{.><:(. 

in  AlahaMfu.  p.  :t:t. 

in  .\rkaiis:i>.  p.  .'U. 

in  Califoi'iii;!.  |i|i.  :t|.  Xi. 

in  ( 'oloiadn.  :ti'i. 

in  ( 'oniici'iii'iii.  |i.  ;{ii. 

ill  l)elawarc.  p.  :{(!. 

ill  l''l<>rida.  p.  :t*i. 


INDKA. 


489 


It. 


i:;7-ii(». 

iiCi'iici'.  pi». 
p.  17. 


pp.  Ji;.  J7 


NEGLIOENCE-Contiuu.'d. 

in  (Jcoifiia.  pp.  :i'i.  •<".  '■5^- 

in  Illinois.  )).  :<s. :»'.). 

in  liuli:iii!i.  p.  :V,). 

in  iDWii.  ]).  ll». 

in  Kiinsiis.  p.   11. 

in  Kentucky,  p.  -11. 

in  l,(.nisiim:i.  Pl>-  "•  '-■ 

in  Miiinc.  p.  \1. 

in  M:ir\l;inil.  p.  l--  ■»'•<• 

in  Miis<:u'liiistMts.  p.  4:i. 

in  Micliifian.  p.  II. 

in  Minni'siiUi.  p.  11. 

in  MW^issim'i.  !••  •1">- 

in  Missouri,  lip.  I'>.  -I'i- 

in  Nt'l»r:i»ka.  p.  -17. 

in  Ncvatla.  !>•  i~- 

in  New  llanipsJiirc.  p.  17. 

in  Now  .Ifist'.v.  1>.  -l^- 

in  New  York.  pi>.  L^.  41). 

in  North  Carolina,  pp.  •"•<).  51 . 

in  Oliio.  IM'-  ''l-  •"'■-• 

in  ()n';jon.  p.  •">•.!. 

in  Pennsylvania,  lip-  •">-'  •'»■*• 

in  lltioclf  Inland,  p.  "il. 

in  Soiitl.  Carolina.  1).  •'>!• 

in  'I'cnncsM'c.  p. .")!. 

in  'l"f\as.  p.  .V). 

in  Vermont,  l).  •"••">• 

in  Vir}?iiiia.  p. '•")• 

in  West  Viricinia.  i).  •"). 

in  Wi^con-^in.  ii.  ;"'•>• 
,H.MleKreesuflu-li^ene.M.l..i:.S.15!» 

,,.a^ons  for  the  division,  i-l'-  I-'''-  I''"- 
decrees  of  ne-li-enee  not  proper  in  eiisc^  . 
l.-)!)-ltlS. 

tlie  Knflli-h  "loetrine.  W-  Wl-m. 

,U,.  An.eriean  eoetrine.  pi-.  KlO-lt.S. 

,lise..r.lanl  deeisions.  pi-.  HIO-IC-J. 

f.lnure  of  owner  to  state  value  and  e.,ntent>d.u 

...neeofearrier.  i.i'-lf.'.'-171.  1-i' 


)f  eonuuon  earners,  pp. 


nt)t  exeuse  nej^li- 


,,.,H,..neeintl.e,.arria,eoflive.oeUH.M.-l-^. 

,vWleM f  Ue^Mi-euee.  Nvhal  .S.  IM';  ^>^'^^'\ 

•'      „.at  f.ood- never  reaeh  destination.  ,. p.  l-«,  .lOJ. 

.,..,.i,lent  nuaeeonnle.l  for.  1. >.•>"'•'• 

want  ..f  snitulde  vehieles.  p.  l.!'- 

"eu,re..eeofllrenop.oofof.e-l.j,'ence,p.l..). 


h. 


K'f 


490 


NE(;LIGK\( 'E— ContiniiPd. 


INDKX. 


(li'slnictidii  of  ^oods  In-  inoh.  p.  JK!. 
biirdfii  of  proof  as  to  iic;;li;,'<'nci'.  pp.  :{7a-;{7!). 
tlic  Aiiu-rioaii  (Idclriiu-.  pp.  ;{72-;{7:j. 


colli rarv  doctrii 


I"',  pp.  :!7l-:{77. 
Ilio  rule  ill  Alaliaiiia.  pp.  :<77-:t7!). 
NEVADA. 

power  of  oanitT  to  coiitiacl  for  excmplioii  not  dctfriniiUMl.  p.  17. 
NKWIIAMI'SIIIKK, 

oanicriiiay  limit  Ids  liability  liy  coniiaii.  |).  17. 
Iiiit  not  hy  iioiicc.  p.  17. 

NEWJKI{SEY. 

i-anier  may  limit  Ids  lial>iliiy  liy  cuntiact.  p.  IS. 
Itii!  not  for  ncjjli^ciifi',  p.  -is, 

•  'xccpi  ill  case  of  gratuitous caiiia^ff,  p.  is.  -js-J. 
NEWSI'AI'KHS. 

iiotii't's  prinicd  in  not  fav<M»'d  by  ihc  courts,  pp.  !i!».  101. 
no  lucsiimpiioii  that  pi-rson  lakiiijj  newspaper  reads  all  its  coiuents. 
J).  100. 

NEWYOJiK, 

carrier  formerly  not  permitted  to  restrict  his  liability  at  all.  p.  is. 
but  may  now  by  spe.ial  contract  evade  all  lialiilily  even  for  iicij- 
j,'ence.  pp.  IS.  I71-17t;.  •.>s„>-;{2:{. 

but  such  t'oniiact  must  be  jdain.  p.  •!!>. 
noticp  insiilliiient  to  restrict  his  liability,  p.  10. 
NOUTII  CAKUI^INA. 

tow-boats  are  common  carriers,  p.  ;i. 
carrier  may  limit  bis  liability  bv  contract,  p. .")(). 
and  in  some  lascs  Iia  iioiice.p.  .">1. 
but  not  for  nej;li>;eiicc.  p.."il, 

noti(;es, 

power  of  carrier  to  limit  bis  liabiliiy  by  notice,  pp.  -JS.  (!7. 
the  rule  in  .America,  pp.  ;tl.  127. 

in  the  Federal  Conrls.  pp.  ;{•_>.  :{s;{. 

ill  Alaliania.  p.  :i:<. 

in  Arkansas,  p.  ;{(. 

in  California,  pp.  HI.  ;|."». 

in  Colorado,  p.  _>(!. 

in  ( 'otineciii'ut.  |>.  ;it;. 

ill  Delaware,  p.  :{(!. 

in  Florida,  p.  :ti;. 

in  <icoij^ia,  pp.  ;tf>.  :;7.  ;(s. 

ill  Illinois,  pp.  :<s.  :i<.i. 

in  l.idiana.  p.  :t!). 

in  Iowa.  p.  10. 

ill  Kansas,  p.  11. 


INbKX. 


An 


I'd.  |i.  17, 


ts  ClllltClllS. 


11.  |).  IS. 
t'li  fur  iK'ir- 


NOTU 'KS— Cuiitiinu'd. 

ill  Kt'iiincky.  \>.  11. 

ill  L()iii>i;iiia.  |i|>'  ll<  I'- 

in  Miiiiu'.  !>.  42. 

ill  .M:in  liinil.  pp.  12.  4;J. 

ill  M;iss;iclllisctls,  p.  4;l. 

ill  Miclii;;aii.  p.  41. 

ill  .Mimic-nia.  p.  44. 

ill  Mississiiiiii,  [).  l.'i. 

ill  .Mis«iiu\i.  pp.  4.').  40. 

in  Ncl)r:i>k:i.  p.  47. 

in  Ncvsidii.  p.  47. 

in  Ni'W  ll:iiiii)sirin'.  \>.  47. 

in  .N'l'W  .li  rscy.  p.  4S. 

ill  N'fW  York.  pp.  is.  lit. 

in  N'oitli  Caniliiiii.  pp.  "'l'.  ."d. 

in  Ohio.  pp.  T)!.  .VJ. 

in  Orf^non.  p.  '>'2. 

ill  I'l'iiii-ylvaiila.  |ip.  •')2.  ."i:>. 

in  Kliodf  Island.  i>.  ''l. 

ill  Soiilli  Carolina.  i».  "i4. 

ill  'I'l'lllK'S-ff.  11.  •''•• 

ill  'I'cxa-.  p.  "i"). 

in  Vorinoiii.  p.  "m. 

in  Virtrinia.  p.  "m. 

ill  Wc-t  Viiirinia.  p.  "m. 

in  Wisconsin,  p.  "»0. 
noticosas  to  ..hava.M.T  and  vain.- of  p.ods^valid,  v\>.  :il,82. 
early  pi'iinith'd  in  iMi.uland.  lip.  M2.  77. 
cntiVisin  (111  this  practice,  p.  SC. 
iillowcd  universally  in  .\meriea.  pp.  ^7.  f*?^.  «'■». 
nile  as  to.  in  Illinois,  doiihtnil.  pp.  >^li.  45:1. 
uureasonahle  charp-s  not  i.erniitied.  p.  W). 
as  to  value,  and  in  dcro-alion  of  liahilitv  of  carrier,  severuble, 

^''biirowIiVr  seeki.iir  to  chai-e  carrier  by  terms  of  notice,  unist 
take  it  as  a  whole,  p.  id. 
„uist  not  be  coiitlictiii^'  oraiiibi-nous.  pp.  ill.  •.i2.  M. 
without  notice  im  duty  ..n  osvner  t<.  stale  value,  p.  .U. 
nor  where  value  is  api.areiit.  pp.  w:t.'.»4.  _ 

notice  lu.t  couiplipd  ^^  ith  no  recovery  at  all.  J..  ■>■>■ 

except  where  oerlain  sum  is  named  as  limit  of  earner  ^  l.a- 

lillliv.  p.  '.">. 
notice  iiiav  be  vvaive.i  by  carrier,  pp.  !•«.  <'"  • 

..s  i.v'Miecial  coiitriut  different  from  terms  of  imtice  p.  96. 
;;.;  •  to  set    IIP  owners  failure  to iply  wUh  nottce  not 

waiver  may  be  by  at;eiii.  p. '.'7. 


492 


INDEX. 


':.  j 


NOTICKS— I'oiUimioil. 

priiittMl  nilcs  of  ciiiricr  wnivcd  by  t^tatcmcut  of  a;j»Mit,  that 

liooils  will  be  st'iU  forb'ss.  p.  !)". 
iiolbc   llial  ;;<>oits  will  not    be  ifcfivcd  afltT  ('iTtaln  time, 

waivt'ii  i»y  icicipt  of  ibcin  after  tbat  liiin'.  i».  !i7. 
iiotii'c  tbat  value  iniisl  be  speellleil  in  reeelpt  waived  by  ae- 

eeptanee  of  ^^ooils  by  a^^eni  wilb  kiiowicdgtMtf  their  value, 

p.  !t7. 
extent  of  iioflee,  i>p.  OS,  !)!). 

notioe  ( ')ii('eriiiii}j  goods  from  A  to  U  ai»plies  to  goods  car- 
ried from  H  to  A.  p.  l>s. 
iioliee  api)lies  to  property  of  passengers  as  well  as  to  goods 

sent  to  be  carried,  pp.  iiS.  ji'.t. 
notices  suspended  at  lirmini  have  no  effect  at   intermediate 

places  on  carrier's  route,  p.  itM. 
stipulation  in  siocV;  pass  covers  not  only  the  transit  but  risks 

accident  in  reaching  and  departing  from  depot,  p.  !)!). 
modes  of  giving  notice,  p.  !t!>. 
advertisements,  p.  !»!•. 
notices  printed  in  newspapers  not  favored.  fl!(,  101. 

no  presumption  tbat  persons  taking  ne\vspa|)er  reads  all 
its  conteiUs.  )>.  1(H). 
placards.  |).  101.  Ur.\. 
notices  by  placards  not  favoreil.  )).  ini. 
passengers  l»y  lioal  no!  bound  by  posted  regnialions.  p.  102. 

lo:?. 

notice  at  one  door  of  ferry  not  binding  on  one  entering 

at  another  door.  p.  lOJ. 
passengers  paying  fare  on   train  not   bound   by  notice. 

posted  at  depot,  p.  102. 
that  pas^engei-  has  seen  notice  in  '.'ar  as  to  smoking  t^c.. 
does  not  raise  presumption  tbat  he  has  seen  notice  as 
to  baggage,  tboiigli  both  in  same  placard,  p.  102. 
receipts,  p.  10U.  101. 

notices  in  receipts  do  not  .iffect  liability  of  carrier  when, 
p.  10;l.  110. 
railroad  and  steamboat  lickeis.  p.  nc,  l'j:i.  .|,",:i. 

notices  in  do  not  bind  passenger  \\  hen.  p.  1 10.  I2:{. 
baggage  checks,  p.  12:5.  120. 

notices  in  do  not  bind  passenger  wlien.  pp.  12:{,  120. 
necessity  of  printing  notices  in  large tyjx-.  pp.  120.  127. 
notices  prescribing  regulations,  pp.   I  n-150. 
valid  if  reasonable,  pp.  I  111  ID. 
void  if  nnreasonable.  pp.  Ilt-1."»0. 
carrier  may  prescribe  lime  within  which  claims  must  be  made.  pp. 

111-lls. 
earlier  may  iirescrilie  regulations  in  the  transport  of  live  slock. 
pp.  IIS-LW. 


INDKX. 


493 


NOTICES— Conliiiui'tl. 

iiiciins  of  ciirryiii;;  (nil  coiKlitiuns  iiiiist  lie  provkUHl  by  ouirit'r.  p. 

151. 
notU'c  to  priiicipul  is  noilic  to  all  his  uguiitu,  p.  ;W0. 


o. 

OHIO. 

carritT  may  limit  Ills  lialiiliiy  l»y  I'lnilrai-t.  p.  .Vi. 
but  not  by  iiotiii".  |).  .VJ. 
nor  for  nt'i^iif^i'iicf.  p.  .VJ. 

OMNIBUS  MNKS. 

Mc  coniiiion  (•arii<'rs.  p.  2. 
••ON  LAKKSOIIHIVKKS." 

foimtnictlon  of  these  \vni(l>  in  bills  of  lading,  p.  2'm. 

•ON  TlllC  TKAIN." 

(■(Histruction  of  these  \\<m\>  in  Mock  eontraets,  p.  'iiVi. 

OPINION. 

of  eaniei  as  t(.  effcet  of  bill  of  lading  doc»  not  alter  Us  legal  force. 

p.  IIW. 

OUKOON, 

power  of  cairier  to  limit  his  liability  not  determined,  p.  .Vi. 

OWNKUOFliOODS. 

fffeet  of  negleel  or  omissi<»n  of  owner  on  carrier's  liability,  pp.  10. 

■JO.  2-2. 
effect  of  owner  undertaking  part  of  carrier's  duties,  pp.  22,  2:1. 

fraud  of  owner,  pp.  2<t.  21. 

concealment  <if  (lualily  or  value  of  goods,  pp.  20,  21. 

owner  not  bound  to  disclose.  ]».  20. 

if  asked  nuisl  give  true  an>wer.  pp.  20,  21. 
„wuer  seeMng  to  »harge  carrier  by  terms  of  notice  must  take  it  a«  a 

noUce  *ti>  shipper  rcpuriug  statement  of   value  and  character  of 
goods,  valid,  pp.  «!-«'•>. 

owner  bound  to  give  informati«ui.  p.  Sl-'M). 
without  noiice  no  duly  io  stale  value,  j).  !i;». 
uor  where  carrier  has  other  information,  pp.  tW,  i>4. 
„„ticc  not  c.uuplied  with  no  recovery  can  be  had,  pp.  !»r>,  !Ui. 
excei.t  when-  e.Ttain  sum  is  named  as  limit  of  earner  s  lia- 
bility, p.  '."i. 
inav  be  waived  by  carrier,  pit.  !»i.  07. 

■  .,.  bv  sp,.,.ial  contract  different  from  terms  of  mttlce,  p.  ««. 
rlgl,"t  to  set   up  owner's  faiimr  t..  con.ply  with  notice  not 

precluded  by  bavin;  \>M  f<>rm<'r  loss,  pp.  !«i.  07. 
waivermay  l>e  l>y  agenl.p.  07.  „..,  ,i,.,t 

print.Ml  rates  of  carrier  waived  by  statement  of  agent  that 
goods  will  be  >ent  for  less.  p.  07. 

;)2 


I 


494 


INDKX. 


■A} 


UWNKlt  OF  (;onl)>-('niiiiiimMl. 


IKilici-  lllilt  jijiiikIt.  will  lint  In'  rt'Cfivcd  siftiT  icllaih  lldlir 
\v:iiv<'(|  liv  ri'ci'ipl  of  tlicni  allcr  tli:il  tiiiii-.  |i.  '.'7. 

liiitii'i'  iliiu  Millie  iniisi  III'  «|i(>rit]t>il  in  rccriiii  waiviMl  li\  ai*- 
i'c|>laiii'i'  111  ynudsliy  .igciil  with  i\iiii\vl«!i|jfi' uf  llitlr  valiif. 


..  '.i; 


I'liiisciit  of  slii|i|)fr  lo  (livialioii  iiy  t  iinit'r.  p.  iM>. 

OWN  Kits  ItlSK." 

«!i)ii.''lniftioii  of  ilici-  \\dnl<  ill  »lui  K  coiiii-aci-.  p.  •;.'):(. 


''.( ■ 


PA  HOI. . 

I'oiilrart  iiinitiiii;' li:!l)ility  iii.iv   In*  I        p.    IKl. 

Iiill  of  liujiiiy-  ran  iioi   In-  waixi'd  I'litrailii'tnl  \>\  p;iio|.  pp.  |:l-.>. 

i:u. 

Imi!  coiLiti'ia!  Muri'i'iiii'iil  inns  \>r  -liown.  p.  |;{i'i. 
4o  iijso  iiia,\  siippli'iiiiMiiaiy  lontract.  pp.  l:li!.  |:>7. 
fraiiil  may  In-  -liown.  pp.  |:;7   I  in. 
inistaUr  may  lir  »lio\\ii.  i;>7-l  l'>. 
iliirt'.<s  ma.v  Ix-  •iliown.  pn.  I:17   I  Id. 
aiil<T<'ilciii  viTli;il  M;:ri'('iiii'iii- :iii'  iiu'ijii''!  in  -iili«i'i|nrni  wiitii'ii  coii- 
lia.l.  i:i:t. 

p.AirrNKKsiiii'. 

t'ffcr!  of  parlnri>lii|i  liciwccn  cafrii-r-.  on  their  lialiilii.v .  p.  I'HI. 
PAS.s.     ,V((;  Kkki:  I'.\s>:  .sjock  I'a>>. 

I'KXX.SYLVA.NIA. 

curriiTiiiay  limit  his  lialiiiily  hy  coiitracl.  |i.  .*>i'. 
anil  ai«o  hy  spcci:!!  notin-.p.  .">:t. 
Ihii  not  for  m  .;liyi'iifc,  p.  .">;!. 

"  I'KUJI.S  ()K  'I'lIK  I.AKK."      .N'c  ••  l».\N<JKic>  tn    N  wic  \  i  i<>s.' 

•  I'KlMI.Sol    rilK  KIVKK.'     ,s.     ••  I)am;kus  oi    N  a\  ii;.\  i  ion." 
••  I'KKIi.S  or  I'ilK  Si; AS."     .sv.  ••  |)AM;r.i!>  nv  Navica tion."' 

•  I'KKISIIAKI.K  rUol-KKTY."  * 

I'lmstillrlii'ii  of  lliisc  woiils  III  hills  of  linlill;;.  p.  •J.">t!. 

•  IMI.or.  MASIKi;  i)|{  MAKINKUS." 

t'oiistriiriioii  III   ijii'-c  word-  ill  liilU  of  ladiiia;.  p.  ■.'•"•7. 

I  I-ACAKDS. 

iioficfs  hy  plaiard  not  tavon-d  hy  the  fomt«.  p.  li>l. 

passi'iij^iT  hy  hoai  not  hound  li\  jioslt'd  regulations,  pp.  lii-_>,  li»;t. 

Iioliee    posted    at    olle  iloor  of   terry  not    hindiliu    on    oiic  elilc  liliU'   Ml 

illiotlier  door,  p.  lO-J. 
pa.«->eii;r(.r  paying  fare  on  train  not  hound  li\   notice  po-ied  at  depot. 

p.  102. 
that  passeii;;er  ha-  seen  notice  in  car  as  to  ^niol^inu:.  doe«  noi   rai>e 

presumption  tli.il  he  lias  seen    notice  a-  to  l>au'tra;it    ilioiiijh   hiith 

ill  stiliie  placard,  p.  luj. 


INDKX. 


495 


linlir 


•  I'l.ACK  OK  hKSTINAriON-." 

roiistnirtion  of  Ihi-oi'  \\nii|«  in  l.ilU  i>t  linllii;;.  |i.  J.'iT. 
I'I.KAIUN<;. 

(IfilMiiiiinii  .hiiiilil  li>'  ii|i<>ii iiiiiiiii  l.'.w  liiiliiliiN  III  caniiT.  p,  :t.s(). 

i(  nil  rMlillilcl  <'MM'|irni|i-  liiii-l   In-  sliili  il,  wlicil,  |t.  ASi), 

|ici>iiii  III  wlmni  iiMiipi  i.  ;ri\cii  nun  liiii.jr  iniiini.  p.  iiM. 
I'oI.ICY. 

iif  allow  ill','  I'liiiiiiiiiii  ran  in- III  liinli   iliiir  liulilliiy  li>  I'liiiiriict,  p. 

rrasiiii-  aiT'iili-I  -iicli  a  rule.  pp.  ."ill.  (id. 

till-  view  «  >i\  Ilic  riilirls  inn  ailll  roil.  pp.  IIO-MI. 

••  I'oiM'  or  i>is(  ii\i{<;i;." 

(■dh-lriuliiii  (if  llii'-r  wuiij-  ill  lilll-  I'f  lailiii;;.  p.  ■j.'iT. 
I'lU'.Sl  MITION. 

11"  prf-iinipliiiii  tlial  pi'i'iHi  lakiii;:  ii<'\\ -papiT  ■•■ail-  .ill  il-  initli'iiN, 

p.   100. 
tlial    |ia»<riii,n'r  lia«  -I'rii  iidtirc  ill  rai    a-  III  -iniir>iiij;.  I'll'.  i|mc.  noi 

rai^c  pi'i'*iiihp!iiiii  thai  ii^  lia<  -n'M  iiniii'r  a-  In  lia^^ia;;!',  Ilimij.'!' 

IkiIIi  ill  lln-  '•aiiK-  plaianl.  p.  loj. 
Ilial  paiiii'<  riinlrart   willi  rrfcrcnrr  in  Uiinwii  >  n-toni  m-  ii-a;ii',  p. 

I.VJ. 
Ilial  ri--i  riilinii-  in  hlli  nf  lailini;  an'  iii.iil"  i':i  -iillii  iciit  I'dii-iclcratjoi) 

p.  27'-'>. 

friiiii  I i-«ii>ii  nf  fii'i'  pa-«.  p.  :tJI. 

lliai  In-,  ari-c*  frnin  faiiil  nf  caiiiiT.  pp.  :i(i;i-,l70. 

I'lMNCII'Al.    \M>   AliKN'l'.     .V"  .\iiiM  K 

I'lUN   \  I  1.  fAUKIKi;. 

wliiii  cnniiiinii  raiiii'f  may  ticcniMi'  a.  p.  ii!!. 

■  njiviMHiK  OF  i{i:-smi'iMN(;. 

i-iiiislnn  linii  nf  ||i('«i'  wnrds  in  hills  nf  la  liiiir-  p.  ■-•'•^. 

IMin.IC  KNKMY. 

In-.  llirniii,'li.  (T  i-liar;?f-  rairiiT.  p,  1 1, 
wliai  i-  a.  pp.  I  I    l.'i. 
what  J.  imi  a.  p.  I'l. 

Q. 

•QrAMITY  (il  AI{A\ir.i;i>." 

cnli-li  iirlinii  nf  lln-f  Wnnl-  ill  Mil-  nl  lailili;:.  p.  ^"•'•'. 

K. 

KAIi.iroAD  (OMrAMI'.S. 

an-  rniiiinnii  canici-..  p.  '1. 
KAll.l{OAI>    rH'KHl'S.     \  .    In  Ki  i>. 

Ki;(;ri.A  iioNs. 

if^'nlaiinn-  pi.'-rriliiil  liy  laniiT  valiil  if  rra-miaMi'.  pp.  I  11-150. 
iiicaii-  "f  carrvin;;  iIm'iii  mil  mii-l  '"•  piMviil'  il.  p.  ITil. 


J 


u  ■ 


4!m; 

INDKX 

"RK.STR.MNTS  OK 

I'KINCKS." 

••(tiixtiiiflloii  o(  th 

I'sc  wordH 

ill  hills 

if  Ituliii;;,  |i 

2:.!>. 

HKWAKI), 

liuliility  of  I'liiniiioii  caniiM-  ftniiidiMl  im.  p.  s-2. 
iinri'iiMoniililf  cliar^cs  not  ailowiMJ.  p.  '.ill. 

RIIODK  ISLAND. 

power  of  canlrT  to  n'stilcl  lii»  lialiility  not  ilctei  iiiiiu'il.  p.  .VI. 
"  KOBHKHS.' 

«*onf«tnictioii  of  tli)>si>  \vor<l'4  in  liili^  of  jailing,  p.  '2<!(). 
•  Kl'ST." 

t'xci'ption  of,  will  t'xriwi'  rn«^i  ranst-d  l)y  >Wfal  or  inoistnii'  of   place 

where  slowed,  p.  Ktl. 
lint  not   wlieii  arising;  from  entrance  of  wal«*r  tliron;!;li  in-*iinicieiit 
ceilings,  p.  |i)|, 

s. 

SHTl'PEIl    OF   (!00|)S.       S,-r  OWNKlt  (11    OOOKS. 

ShKKI'INtJ  (Alt  COMi'AMKS. 

are  iioi  coiiiiiiDii  caM'ier-',  )i.  I. 
criticism  of  this  rnlin;;.  p.  I. 

SOiril  <"AI{OMNA. 

carrier  may  limit  liis  lialiility  In  eoiitriict.  p.  54. 
and  also  liy  notice,  p.  .M. 

hill  not  fur  lie;;li;;(iice.  p.  ."d. 

STAtiK  COACH KS. 

are  ciiiiimuii  carriers.  |i.  •_'. 

STAIT'IKS. 

the  Kii<:;lisli  statutes  a-i  to  carrici «.  pp.  -J.S-itl. 

the  IJailw.iy  and  Canal   rialllc  Act.  pp.  J'.>.  Ifll.  I  Id- 1  II. 
the  Cariiei'V  aci,  1(1:1.  l(l|. 

Iowa  st.'itiile  furhiddini;  ciiiitracts  rMnilin<;  liahilily.  p.  X). 

.Michi^jan  stalnte  reqiiiriiii;;  wrilten  cuiitiaci,  |).  II. 

Mississippi  <ialnie  as  to  liniilin;;  lial>ilii>.  p.  I."!. 

'I'cXiis  stalnte  foihiddin;;  coiilracis  limiliii;;  liahiliiy.  p.  .'>.".. 

I'nited  .States  statutes  as  to  carrier-  liy  wuicr.  pp.  Ili|-l!i7. 

Illinois  statute  as  tn  cmitracl-  limitin;^  |iahiiil.\ .  p.  irill. 
STKAMHOATS. 

are  coiiimoii  carriers,  p.  li. 
STK.V.MJJOAT   TICK K  IS.     ,s-.    IK  kk.ts. 

.STOCK  PASS. 

slipnlalions  in.  cuver  not  only  the  transit  Iml  risks  iiicidfiii  to  enter- 
ing and  leavin;;  dc|)iit.  p.  !i!i. 

sti|)iilalioii  in  stock  pass  e\cniprni<:;  carrier  from  lialiility  for  ne<>;li- 
<i;enee  void.  pp.  27S-'JS2, 
the  doctrine  in  New  York,  pji.  JSJ-lt^;!. 


IM>KX. 


i% 


"SrrFOCATION."' 

i-oustnu'tloii  of  thin  wonl  In  utock  fontnu-ti«.  i>.  "JOn, 


TAUIFF  IIAIKS. 


^iniilloii  of  ilu'^f  wdhW  ill  I>U1>  (if  liuUn)?.  jt.  iTJ. 

TEAMS  THUS. 

lire  coiiiiiion  tiinlcis.  p.  '.». 

TEI.J':<il{AI'll  COMl'ANIKS. 

iirc  mil  rinimiiiii  fiiiiiii*.  \>.  '•\- 
(•illlcisni  iif  llii"  iiiliuK'.  1'.  •• 
TENNKSSKK 


Clin 


l.T  iniiy  rmiil  hi-  liuliility  hy  f.mtnuM.  i>.  :.». 
Itiit  not  for  II. 'y;!"!;;!'!!!'*'.  p.  M. 


f,.il>i.ltllii-;  .-oiilrart^  liiiiifm;;  lialiility.  p.  '»•')• 


TEXAS. 

sll^llll^^ 

.•'I'lllEVK 

«TIIK()r<ilI   WIIIKUT    rUANSl'KK 


KiillllKUS 


•uiiHtriii'iioii  oi  1 


1„.M.  ^^o^ls•mllillof  liulUiK.  p. -iOl. 


'''""lililaiiiou^on  r,uho:Ml  or  .t..an,l.oat   thk...  .h.  no,  hliul  pa-.M.K.T 
hy  iirccpliUUM-  whiioni  di.-rnl.  l>p.  IKi-l-!'- 
.■oiiilliioii-  hi  liook  of  conpoiw.  p.  I.">. 
..•row   .\M>  ASSISI-  VESSELS." 

,.,.i.-iniriio..  of  ih.-..  wonl,^  Ml  hills  of  la.li..^'.  Pi'-  .i«'>-  i^- 

TOW  IK)  A  IS. 

an-  iioi  rdimiion  rani'-v-'.  p.  '•'■ 

..x.'.-pi  ill  l.oni-iaiiu  ami  CaUfoniia.  p.  :i. 

,Mi..,.s  shouhl  h.-  i"i"t'Ml  ill  lar-.'  type.  J.p.  l^'i-  I'-J"- 

r. 


..  rNAVOIPAIU.E  .\r(  lUKNIS.-                               .,.„..«..•.,;: 
,„„s,r.,.-.ion  of  ,li..-  wonl-  in  UUU  ot  la.l.n^^  pi-.  2->l.  ^C.  - 

^'''!:n'"n;ajHn;i.hi...oni law  liahiihy  hy  0........ pp.  ...  .s.. 

l„ii  not  for  iH'jiliji.-ii.T.  p!-.  .1-^  .(>•>• 
norhy  iioliiM'.  p.  ;i:i. 
„„.  ,„i,.„,  s,a,.-  -tatiit.-  as  to. -a.  dors  hy  wiU.-r.  pp.  LM-Lh- 


I  SACl 


,...ni..i-s  liahilitv  niav  h-  .•ontn-lhil  hy.  p.  IM. 

;::   larnsa,.  o..  ;.us......  nni-.   ho  giMioral.  re...nahl..  . 


iiiil   niii- 


forni.  p.  l''-- 


4f>8 


IM»KX. 


m 

m 

m 

m 


I'SAiJK— rtiiiliimiil. 

wIk'ii  ciirriiT  laii  not   limit   lii<  iinliiiiiy  Ity  <hr,\vlii;j  iisiig«,  p|).  1.V2. 
i:.:t. 

n-:i;'c  i<  iitlniis.ililc  to  i'\|iliiiii  .1  <'i)iitiiitl.  pji.  l."»l.  I."i7. 
Itiit   lint  to  i'iiiiir:iilici  it.  |i|),  j.'il.  I,').'). 


s    >l. 


tn 


V. 

VAI-IK  AND  cnNTIlN  rs. 

owner  not  friinii<'il  lo  -laii'  wiliic  nf  u;no(iH  iiiiaskiMl.  p.  •J(i. 

ImiI  if  M^kiMJ  iiiii-t  iiii-wiT  Inily.  |i|i.  ■_'".  21. 

iiiilicc-i  liy  cMirirr  a-  to  \aliii'   ami   I'liaiacliT  of  ;;(hm1«   \  aliil.  |i|).  >I  . 

I'ari.v  p.'i  iiiiilcci  in  I'lnj^JaiMl.  pp.  sj.  >T. 

ciitiii^iii  on  tilt'  practjci'.  p.  Ml, 

allowiil  ii>nally  in   Aniciiia.  pp.  s7.  ><^.  >>li. 

nilt-  a^  to  in  lllinojv  (lunliifiii.  p.  Ml,   t.Mt. 

isiin-asonalilc  cliar;.'!'-  not    pcnrittrd.  |i.  DU. 

iiotirt'-i  a<-  to  valiir  ;  ml  in   ili'i'o;;atioii  of  lialiili;y  -rNcialilr,  |i|i. 

!»»,  ill. 
mn«l  not  ln'  ronllic  in:;:  or  aiiilii<;iioii«.  pp.  !i|.  iij.'.ill. 
wit  lion t  iiotiri'  110  1 1 II I  y  mi  ow  nm'  to  >tati-  \alMi-.  p.  '.);i. 
nor  w  lii'ic  xaliii'  i-  appaii-iil,  pp.  '.ill.  '.i|. 
noiii'i'-<^  not  I'limplii'ij  with  no  r''i'o\<'r>  can  lie  had.  p.  '.i.'i. 

I'Mi'pi  w  hfii- rciiaiii  >iini  1- naiiicd  as  limii   of  caiiicr'-  lia- 
'iilil\ .  p.  l.i'p. 
iioiifc  nia\   Im'  waived  li.\  i.arrier,  pp.  in!.  '.i7. 

a«  li\'  «peeial  eoiijiael   dilTerent   from  ti'llll-  ol     linlii'e.   |i.  iH'i. 

ri;:lit  lo  -el  ii|i  owner"-  lailiire  lo  eoinply  w  iili  noiiee  not 
preelmleil  liy  liavili:;  paid  lormer  lo-.«.  |i|i,  '.n;.  ',17. 

waiver  may  lie  li\  a^i'iii.  p. '.17. 

Ilotiee  ilial  \a'u"  niii-l  Im'  -peeilied  ill  leeeipl  Aai\ed  Ity  ae- 
eeptailee    <if    ■iimd-    liy   a;;enl    with    Knowledge    of    \alne.   |). 

'.'7. 

failure  ot    owner    to    di«elo»e    value    and    eolilenl-    iif    'j; I-    doe^ 

not  e\en-e  iiei;li:,en f  I'arrier.  pp.  Mill- 171. 

iinle—  amoiiiitiii;;  to  eonti  ilnit  ny    iiei:li;;eiiei>.  |i|i.   171.  I7-J. 

•  VAI.IK  AM)  <  (i.MKX  IS  I   NKNOWN." 

I'unsti'iietion  of  ilie-e  wnid-  in  liill-  of  ladiii;;-.  pp.  -Ji;!.  Jt'>.'>. 
VKKMONT. 

carrier  iiiav   limit  lii-  lialiiliiy  liy  eonirael.  p.  ."i.">. 
lint  no!  Iiv   iioliii'.  p.  ."i."!. 

••  VICKH  SNK.-i.s." 

eonstriiction  of  ild-  word  in  -loi'k  eonlraet-.  p.  .'iid. 

VII{<;lMA. 

carrier  iiiav   limit  lii-  liaiijli'v   liy  eonirait.  p.  ."i."i. 
Iml  lioi   (iir  iie;;liL.',eme.  p.  X). 


"W 


iMir.x. 
W. 


•li«5l 


II 


>VA<i<)NKHS. 

lire  (•(tiiiiiinii  ciiirii'iv.  p.  '.!. 

WAIVKU. 

ciirrliT's  ii<)lit«>-  mii\  !»•  wuivcil.  |>|>.  '••<;.  '■'.  • 
in:iv  1m   vvMiviil  liv  iiirt'iil.  p.  '■•". 

'  p,.i„„'.l   n.l.-"f  '"im.T  vxMiv'Ml  l.yMMi.iinnl  m  ap'iii   ilu.i 
cr.M.d-  will  Im-  -fill  for  !«■".  \<   '.'7. 
„.„i,,.  ,1,,.   -.M..N  w;il    nni    In     n..-..iv.-l    ■MU■^    r.yVMn   mn.. 

Wiiw.l  by  ivcripl  uf  \ii.in  ;ill.T  llial  Illnr,  p.  '•.. 
„.„•„...  tl.Mi"  val...-  n.u-l    U"  -pr.ill.-.l  in   nroipi.  wmIv..!  l.> 

;,.,...pl;u..-  ..f  li I-  l.v  ;.--ul    Willi   Ui.-.wl.'.l^'.'  Hi   ll.-n 

valiif.  p.  '.'"• 

.•\v.\'n:i!Kl>   AM>  l'KI>"" 

,„nMrurti..nui  il.r  ...  wunl- in -mrl un...!-.  p.  •- 

••  \Vl-\rilKK.  INH  IMKS  OCCASION!:!"  I'.V' 

..on-m.rtion  nf  II ■^^^uUm^'iW-'^n.^'Wu^-V.-^^'''- 

"'•^::::.,-:';;:;;^n::in,i^ii..inu..n......^ n....i... ...-•> 

Iitiml.  p.  ."''i- 

hut  rnnlracl  nn>i   I"'  .-I. mi-,  p.  .'.... 

''"^rn'^'lv.  i.  n..nu.Uln-n...iliu  ...•;...,..•,,....;. 

I,„l  wl.HlM'i  l..rl,i>n.-li.:r.M..-.nui.l..-i.l.<l.  1 

NV(,UI)S  ANl»    !M!!{A>!>.     N"  !m  .  lau.  IM  .on. 


